- SAP America, Inc. v. Cyandia, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2024-01433 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 23, 29, 35, and 36 are unpatentable as obvious over the PCT Publication and Austin-Lane.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like, and/or four or more years of experience in server-based applications” and that “[a]dditional experience may make up for a lack of education and vice versa.” PO Resp. 9. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the challenged patent and prior art, we adopt it and use “skilled artisans” to refer to people with such skill at the time the invention was filed. We do not perceive a substantive distinction between the parties’ definitions, but note that Petitioner’s definition provides more detail about the capabilities of skilled artisans. Also, the level of ordinary skill in the art can be evidenced by the references cited, and we find it commensurate with the cited references in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“device indicated by the session data” encompasses “determining a notification method based on” session data indicating the current state of the external device, where the current state of the device encompasses an online state as well as an offline state. See Pet. 53–54; Tr. 55:3–10 (The Board: “Are there any other states of an external device other than online or offline?” Patent Owner: “As far as I know, Your Honor, those are the only two[.]”), Tr. 65:24–66:1 (The Board: “When the claim says current state, they mean it’s online or offline?” Petitioner: “Correct.”), Tr. 20:23–21:8. The specification is consistent with the plain language of the claim in disclosing two examples of the claimed “current state,” namely, online and offline. Ex. 1101, 21:1–4. The specification discloses that the notification manager “queries session manager 456 to determine the user’s connectedness.” Id. at 21:6–8. The specification discloses that if the user is “online, notify by, for example, the user’s active session. If offline, notify by, for example, a txt [sic] message, call the user’s landline, call a friend of the user, and the like.” Id. at 21:1–4, 23:28–31.” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s expert witness, Dr. Goodrich, show written description support for providing a notification to an active external device, Patent Owner has not cited any portion of the 2009 Parent, nor any portion of the testimony of Dr. Goodrich, to show that the 2009 Parent provides written description support for determining a notification method by which to provide an alert to an external device based on the current state of the external device as offline. We highlight that Paragraphs 130 and 131 of the 2011 CIP Application disclose offline notification preferences for determining a notification method by which to provide an alert to an external device based on the current state of the external device as offline. Ex. 1110 ¶¶ 130–131. Specifically, paragraphs 130 and 131 describe that: the notification manager of the eventing and alerting subsystem 452 queries the configuration server 454 for the user's notification preferences and correlates these notification preferences with session manager 456 to determine the best notification method. That is, the notification manager queries the configuration server 454 and determines, for example, that the user has certain online notification preferences and certain offline notification preferences. If online, notify by, for example, the user's active session. If offline, notify by, for example, a txt message. . . . The notification manager of the eventing and alerting subsystem 452 then queries session manager 456 to determine the user's connectedness. Id. That is, if the user’s connectedness, or “current state” of the claimed external device, is offline, and the user’s offline notification preferences are “notify by txt message,” the notification manager will determine that the notification method for the external device having a current state of offline is by txt message. See id. Thus, the 2011 CIP Application describes a notification manager that queries a session manager to determine whether an external device is offline, and if the external device is offline, determines a notification method for providing an alert on the external device based on the current status of the external device as offline and the user’s offline notification preferences. Although we find this written description support for the determining limitation in the 2011 CIP Application, we do not find this written description support in the 2009 Parent.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“As to the “determining a notification method” limitation (1.10), Petitioner asserts that Austin-Lane teaches determining: (1) the user device(s) to send the notification to (e.g., phone, PDA, notebook computer, desktop computer); (2) the communication protocol to use to send the notification, i.e., how to send the notification (e.g., SMTP (for email), SMS (for texts), HTTP (for web browsers)); and (3) the type of alert to provide, i.e., how to present the notification, (e.g., text, an icon, a pop-up window, a video, an email, an audible or tactile alarm), based on the current state of the at least one external device indicated by the session data (“presence information”), which may include whether and on which device(s) the user is online and/or whether and on which applications the user has an active session. Id. at 53 (internal citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 4, 5, 29, 32, 33, 39, 46, 48, 61, 79, Fig. 1). We highlight that paragraph 61 of Austin-Lane discloses that: The type preferences 650 may include preferences for various notification types. . . . [A]uction alert #1 660 defines the following delivery precedence 663: (1) a web browser (if the user is online), (2) an IM client (if the user is online), (3) a mobile phone #1, (4) a PDA, (5) a mobile phone #2, (6) a pager, and (7) an email inbox. Ex. 1105 ¶ 61; see id. ¶¶ 74–77 (Describing that one of several notification methods for delivering an alert to a user’s device is determined based on the current state of the user’s device as online or offline). Thus, Austin-Lane describes determining a notification method by which to provide an alert on an external device based on the current state of the external device as online as well as offline.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,751,948 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,751,948 - Apple Inc. v. Apex Beam Technologies LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00900 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized by statute “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the record before us, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1– 20 of the ’727 patent. Accordingly, we institute the requested inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) relating to the subject matter of the ’727 Patent as of [November 1, 2016] would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field, along with two years of experience designing or developing wireless networks, including long-term evolution LTE/4G or 5G new radio (NR) cellular technology. APPLE-1003, Section V. Additional education might substitute for some of the experience, and additional substantial experience might substitute for some of the educational background. Id. Pet. 3–4. Patent Owner at this stage utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 5. As Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“On this record, we agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner, in contending that Park’s hybrid CSI signal does not describe two signalings, does not address Petitioner’s mapping of the claimed “first signaling” and the claimed “second signaling.” Petitioner persuasively maps the claimed “first signaling” to Park’s hybrid CSI signal (Pet. 21), and persuasively maps the claimed “second signaling” to Park’s DCI format signal (Pet. 30). Patent Owner does not explain why Park’s DCI format signal does not describe the claimed “second signaling.” On this record, we are sufficiently persuaded by Petitioner and Dr. Akl that Park’s DCI format signal, which triggers the UE to perform aperiodic CSI reporting, describes a “second signaling . . . used to determine the Q2 antenna port(s)” as recited in limitation 1.6. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 137–142; Ex. 1005, 38:20–36.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“include Shin’s CSI request field provides the benefit of allowing the network to directly configure the CSI report behavior of a UE, such that the base station can obtain channel state information regarding specific channels used by the UE and the base station in order to exchange data as taught by Shin. Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 71). Petitioner also contends that adding Shin’s CSI request field to the DCI format signal of Park is the combination of familiar elements according to known methods that yields a predictable result, and that the combination uses Shin’s known technique of including a CSI request field in a DCI format signal to improve Park’s DCI format signal in the same way. Id. at 58 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 69; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–421 (2007)).” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,063,727 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00653 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’504 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 72); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1002 ¶ 47. As reflected above, Dr. Wooley’s testimony as to element [1.2] does not even assert that Cardamone discloses a tank, let alone one or more sensors disposed at a tank as recited in element [1.2]. Thus, Dr. Wooley’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s argument on this issue.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,726,504 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00652 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’403 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 73); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses element [1.2] because the evidence cited does not disclose a “first computer system being configured to provide remote control of the first pump or first valve” (i.e., a fluid-handling device). Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but Petitioner has not identified any disclosure of the capability to remotely control fluid-handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, Kahn’s disclosures that Petitioner relies on for allegedly teaching remote control are deficient. We discuss each. First, Petitioner points to the following, “[f]or instance, as illustrated in FIG. 1C, a fluid control device such as a valve 15A is located on the input side of a sen[s]or unit 110.” Ex. 1005, 8:19–21, cited in Pet. 13. This portion of Kahn, however, does not disclose remote control. Second, Petitioner cites to the following: Finally, or in addition to, the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:62–67). We agree with Patent Owner that this portion of Kahn teaches on-site alerts and local control of the fluid-handling device. See Prelim. Resp. 7. This portion of Kahn does not disclose remote control.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,294,403 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00651 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9–20 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“target value” is part of a command that is sent from a computing device to a server and then to a controller. The controller then receives a measurement of the fluid by a sensor and determines whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” If the measurement does not satisfy the “target value,” further operations are undertaken. The recited operation sequence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” is not as Dr. Wooley opines because the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time is represented by the measurement taken by the sensor, 11 Some claim language less relevant to construing “target value” was omitted for ease of reference. which the controller then uses to determine whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” Additionally, claim 1 recites that the “target value” is sent as part of a command to the controller. The “target value” is not sent to the controller from the sensor, as might be expected if the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” were as Dr. Wooley opines. Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s construction would also result in “target value” meaning effectively the same thing as the measurement of the fluid by the sensor, a concept that is separately recited in claim 1 and to which the “target value” is compared. The Specification of the ’680 patent does not support Petitioner’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value.” Although the Specification does not recite “target value,” it recites “target state,” and describes “target state” sufficiently to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “target” as used in “target value” and “target state.” In particular, the ’680 patent explains that “[i]n some embodiments, the process 104 includes receiving, via a network interface, from a remote user device, (e.g., via a command-center server) a command to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state.” Ex. 1001, 11:48–51. This portion reflects that the command is seeking to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state. In other words, the “target value” or “target state” is not generally “the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time”; rather, it is a value or state that the fluid-handling device is desired to be in, as Patent Owner and Dr. Durham explain. Additionally, just as claim 1 recites a directional component for the “target value” to be sent to the controller in a command, so too does the Specification describe a “target state” as being sent in a command from a remote user device. Thus, the Specification clearly supports the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Patent Owner and Dr. Durham and not the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Wooley. slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“time-stamped process data, report exception therein to the remote host, and extract and transmit time-stamped process data to the remote host.” Ex. 1005, Abst. (emphases added). Almadi explains that its remote field systems must include a plurality of controller units “to issue commands to, and gather and process data from a plurality of field devices, including remote systems and instruments, . . . [and] a database server for the storage of process data retrieved from the remote subsystems and instruments.” Id. at 2:22–30 (emphases added). Based on these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established that Almadi discloses element [1.4]. Specifically, the teachings from Almadi identified by Petitioner refer to process data, which is data retrieved from the remote subsystems/field devices. Thus, we understand that Almadi’s teaching—of using an Ethernet switch to transmit “process data”—describes transmitting data from the remote subsystems/field devices. See Ex. 1005, 3:13–17, cited in Pet. 15. But claim 1 and particularly element [1.4], recites “sending, with the server, the target value to the network address [which identifies a controller of the fluid-handling device13] via the network,” which is different than sending process data from the field devices to the remote host or database server for storage.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,175,680 - Tanklogix, LLC v. SiteproInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00650 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–32 and 34 were unpatentable over Kahn or Kahn and Gutierrez.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’871 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 18–32 and 34 of the ’871 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The respective proposed levels of qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art are similar, with Patent Owner proposing two years of experience compared to Petitioner proposing significant experience with remotely controlling fluid-handling devices, like SCADA systems. Patent Owner also proposes more extensive experience in lieu of educational experience. While we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications to be acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’871 patent and the asserted prior art. Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the qualifications adopted.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“actuators and the remote control of fluid handling devices, including the receipt with the user-interface module of “a user command to actuate an actuator via a presented control interface” (limitation [18.7]) and “account authorized to send commands to remotely control fluid handling devices” (limitation [18.11]). We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses or teaches these limitations because the evidence does not provide support that there is remote control of fluid handling devices or the use of a user command on a control interface to send a command to a fluid handling device, for instance. Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but we do not discern that it teaches or discloses the capability to remotely control fluid handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, the Kahn disclosures that Petitioner repeatedly relies upon for allegedly teaching this control are deficient. See Ex. 1005, 10:62–67, 14:35– 15:2, 15:62–16:32; see also Pet. 12–14, 16–18. Kahn discloses that “the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance.” Ex. 1005, 10:62–67. Communication unit 112B is part of the local “sensor unit,” wherein the detection conditions determined by the sensor are communicated to remote devices by communication unit 112B. See id. at 3:31–33, 5:62–6:2, 6:27–35, 7:33–37, 13:7–12, Figs. 1A–1C. Kahn discloses that the sensor units, which include communication units 112B, can be located near shut-off valves and can communicate with distant locations. See id. at 11:1–13. There are no disclosures, however, in the above passages that there is remote control of fluid handling devices, that there is a user command on a control interface that actuates an actuator, or that there is a command sent to the facility actuators via a network connection, as required in limitations [18.5]–[18.7] and [18.9]–[18.12], respectively. Rather, the disclosure indicates that the communication unit 112B includes on-site alerts and that the local (non-remote) communication unit 112B can be interfaced with the control valve.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,488,871 - PTAB · Apr 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00180 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Comcast would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review on all of the challenged claims based on all of the grounds identified in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s filing of three parallel petitions is grounds to deny all three petitions on that basis alone. Petitioner has complied with our guidance by filing a statement ranking the petitions. See Practice Guide, 59–60. For reasons discussed in our concurrent Decisions Denying Institution in IPR2025-00181 and IPR2025- meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.”). Claim construction arguments should not be relegated to patentability arguments on the facts. warranted. Given our Decisions to Deny Institution in IPR2025-00181 and IPR2025-00182 and the official guidance we have received in the Practice Guide, we have no option but to deny Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny institution on all three of the petitions challenging the ’275 patent. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to the deny institution in the instant proceeding. E. Anticipation of Claim 1 by Zhang” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not address the level of skill. See Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the field of the invention of the ’275 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art.7 7 If Patent Owner disagrees with this formulation of the level of skill in the art, it must raise that disagreement in its Response. If a different level of skill would affect the outcome in this case, the parties must brief that issue as well. The failure of Patent Owner to describe how a different level of skill in the art is determinative will be a forfeiture of that argument. If there is a dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, then the parties are also encouraged to submit evidence, other than conclusory expert testimony, that supports their position. See 37 C.F.R § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner states that all of the limitations “should be given their ordinary and customary meaning to a” person having ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 19. Although Petitioner argues that none of the limitations are means-plus-function terms, Petitioner provides constructions to the extent that there are means-plus-function terms. Pet. 19–20. Patent Owner does not respond. See Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.8 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor 8 If either party intends to argue a claim construction at trial, including what is the plain and ordinary meaning of a term, they should do so in a clearly designated section of their briefing. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 21, 2019) (“Practice Guide”), 46, 49 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated); O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. Parallel Petitions” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,785,275 - SAP America, Inc. v. Cyandia, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Apr 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01433 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 23, 29, 35, and 36 based on the PCT publication and Austin-Lane under § 103.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation will eliminate the overlap between this proceeding and invalidity at the district court. Unlike the other, related IPRs for which we discretionarily deny review (e.g., IPR2024-01432, -01495, & -01496), this proceeding does not involve references that fundamentally convey the same information as may be presented as system art in the Texas litigation. In light of the stipulation and nature of the asserted ground, we conclude that this ground strongly favors institution.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We conclude that the claim language reads on Austin-Lane’s disclosure of determining “a presentation method of the notification” such as “using an instant message to the notebook computer” (Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 39, 46), in combination with teachings regarding the device to which the notification is sent and the protocol used to deliver it. We further conclude that Petitioner has provided an adequate reason that skilled artisans would have looked to Austin-Lane’s teachings and combined them with the system described in the PCT publication, as discussed. We have further reviewed the uncontested aspects of the challenge to claim 1 (Pet. 43–58) and determine that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail proving obviousness of claim 1. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to unpatentability of at least one claim. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 23, 29, 35, and 36 of the ’948 patent is instituted on the grounds raised in the Petition; and” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of filing “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, with two or more years of experience developing and implementing graphical user interfaces for controlling server-based applications, including handling asynchronous notifications generated by those applications and web services, such as portal systems, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience” and “would have been familiar with common approaches for presenting information on a graphical user interface, including various layouts for presenting multiple elements, such as icons, widgets, windows, etc.” Pet. 14–15. Petitioner describes further capabilities that such a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had. Id. at 15–16. Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like, and/or four or more years of experience in server-based applications” and that “[a]dditional experience may make up for a lack of education and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the challenged patent and prior art, we adopt it and use “skilled artisans” to refer to people with such skill at the time the invention was filed. We do not perceive a substantive distinction between the parties’ definitions, but note that Petitioner’s definition provides more detail about the capabilities of skilled artisans. Should either party believe that the definition of ordinary skill in the art affects a disputed issue in the trial, it should point out how and identify any potential dispute about the level of skill.” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree. Petitioner notes that certain disclosures added to the April 2011 CIP application describe a “notification manager” to “determine the best alert notification method.” Pet. 27 (quoting Ex. 1110 ¶ 131; citing id. ¶¶ 90–93, 130–132, 145–147, 160). That does not mean that Petitioner construes the claim language to require determining the best method, only that disclosing a mechanism that “determine[s] the best alert notification method” provides written-description support for a requirement to “determin[e] a notification method.” Petitioner is clear in its position that the May 2009 application “does not describe how to determine a notification method or how to use ‘session data’ in the manner required by this claim limitation.” Pet. 27–28. Patent Owner asserts that the May 2009 application discloses “determining a notification method” through a channel alert server that can “determine the active devices of the subscriber . . . to provide a visual or auditory alert in the channel.” Prelim. Resp. 32 (quoting Ex. 1106 ¶ 39). That disclosure appears to address the claim language requiring an alert “based on the current state of the at least one external device indicated by the session data.” It does not, however, address the claim language “determining a notification method.” Patent Owner recognizes that Petitioner asserts disclosures in the prior art for “determining which devices to send the alert to, the protocols used to send the alert, and how alerts are presented.” Id. at 34 (emphasis omitted). But when Patent Owner asserts that the May 2009 application discloses determining how alerts are presented, it points to paragraphs that do not support the assertion. Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1106 ¶¶ 23, 39). The first, paragraph 23, states that a “trigger may cause the information channel to change its appearance or to take other actions that may be implemented by the developer” and that “one action that may be implemented is to provide a notification to the user.” Ex. 1106 ¶ 23. Nothing about that indicates the system determines how an alert is presented. The second, paragraph 39, states that the channel alert server may “provide a visual or auditory alert in the channel” and that the “alert can appear as defined on other platforms.” Nothing about that indicates the system determines how an alert is presented. Patent Owner has not shown how the May 2009 application discloses a determining a notification method, as claimed. In Patent Owner’s view, Petitioner admits that the May 2009 application (which is the same as the asserted PCT publication) describes determining a delivery mechanism because Petitioner compares it to Austin-Lane, stating that the PCT publication “already includes a channel alert server that determines the active devices of the user and delivers an alert to the user’s device” and “discloses setting the same type of alert (stock alert) and presenting it in the same way (visually) as Austin-Lane.” Prelim. Resp. 35 (quoting Pet. 54) (emphasis omitted). But simply delivering an alert does not necessarily mean the notification method for that alert was determined. We conclude that Petitioner’s statement does not show the PCT publication discloses “determining a notification method” as claimed.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,751,948 - Netflix, Inc. v. VL Collective IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-00891 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable, including as anticipated by Comps; the majority finds Comps’s Tracks 1 and 3 example meets the claim limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the prior art and supported by the testimony of Dr. Bederson. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30. Dr. Goodrich testifies that “Dr. Bederson and Petitioner offer a slightly different definition of the POSITA, which is similar to my definition” and that his “opinions would not change were” he “to adopt the definition of POSITA offered by Petitioner.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 54. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which is materially the same as Patent Owner’s proposal for purposes of this Final Written Decision, as Dr. Goodrich testifies. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“1. content-related data segments Claim 1 recites “content-related . . . data segments.” Patent Owner construes this phrase as “segments of content data that have a syntactical meaning within the respective data file.” PO Resp. 12. As Patent Owner notes, the ’794 patent specification states that “[t]he term ‘content-related’ is understood to mean that first and second data segments have a syntactical meaning within the respective data file, such as e.g. a plurality of succeeding second data segments represent the speech signal of a specific speaker within a dialog sequence.” Id. at 12–13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:9–22); Ex. 1001, 4:9–22 (second emphasis added). The ’794 specification supports Patent Owner’s position that the emphasized sentence essentially defines the term “content-related . . . data segments.” PO Resp. 13–15. However, as Petitioner argues, nothing in the sentence restricts “content-related data segments” to “content” only, for example, “sampled audio,” instead of also including information relating to the content. See Reply 3 (arguing that “the phrase ‘content data’ appears nowhere in the ’794 patent and was not part of the ‘inventors’ express lexicography’ for ‘content-related . . . data segments,’ as P[atent] O[wner] incorrectly contends”). Petitioner points out that Patent Owner’s reliance on the specification refers to “content-related . . . data segments” and “contentbased data segments.” Id. (emphasis by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:9– 22). Petitioner also contends that the specification refers to describing data, contradicting Patent Owner’s position that the data segments must include content. Id. at 7 (“[A]ccording to at least one embodiment of the invention, media data, in particular video or audio data, and/or metadata, in particular encoded according to the XML standard, are described by way of the first and/or second data file.”) (emphasis by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:4– 10). Moreover, as Petitioner argues, “the word ‘data’ should be given its plain and ordinary meaning,” so that “even if the [unrecited] phrase ‘content data’ is included in the Board’s construction . . . . the term ‘content data’ would include any information relating to the content.” Id. at 4. As noted above, both parties point to the specification’s definition of “content-related . . . data segments”: “The term ‘content-related’ is understood to mean that first and second data segments have a syntactical meaning within the respective data file, such as e.g. a plurality of succeeding second data segments represent the speech signal of a specific speaker within a dialog sequence.” Ex. 1001, 4:9–22. This passage indicates that data segments are content-related or include content, such as a “speech signal,” and that these segments “have a syntactical meaning” with respect to the source of the signal, such as a speaker. See Inst. Dec. 9 & n.8, 17 (observing that “[t]he term ‘content-related’ is somewhat subjective because there is not much guidance in the ’794 patent specification as to what a ‘syntactical meaning’ encompasses”). In context, one plain meaning of the term “syntax” is “[t]he way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences.” Ex. 3002 (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 1305 (1976)). However, as indicated above, the ’794 patent refers to video images and audio sounds with a syntactical meaning, showing that it embraces broader subject matter than the plain meaning of “syntax.” Patent Owner’s argument that the ’794 patent refers to “content-” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“segments.’”). Comps supports Petitioner and states that “two syllables represented by the fields TEXT[1] and TEXT[2] must be presented to the user.” Ex. 1004, 3:39–40 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Petitioner persuasively maps each of these text fields to an “associated one of the content-related first data segments [Nf3 and Nf4, respectively] on the basis of an assignment rule [the SYNCH process],” as claim 1 requires.” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“1. Claim 6 Petitioner identifies particular passages in Comps and Wan as teaching or suggesting the subject matter additionally recited in claim 6 and provides reasons for combining the teachings. Pet. 50–51. The record supports Petitioner’s showing. See id. Patent Owner does not provide separate arguments for claim 6. See generally PO Resp. Based on the full record, we determine that Petitioner shows by a preponderance of evidence that Comps and Wan render claim 6 unpatentable. 2. Claims 7, 8, and 22 Claim 7 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim 1, further” slip op. at 68
Patent outcomesUS 8,605,794 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,605,794 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / Instagram, Inc. et al. v. VL Collective IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00923 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Handley, Basturk, and PacketCable; Judge McKone dissented over the printed-publication findings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“broadly, how skilled artisans in the cable industry in 1999 shared information, is not based on her expertise and should not be given any weight. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592, (1993) (“Presumably, this relaxation [in FED. R. EVID. 702] of the usual requirement of firsthand knowledge—a rule which represents ‘a ‘most pervasive manifestation’ of the common law insistence upon ‘the most reliable sources of information,’ ’ is premised on an assumption that the expert’s opinion will have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline.” (internal citation omitted)); FED. R. EVID. 701 (“If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception.”). I would find that Dr. Hall-Ellis’s opinions are not based either on her expertise or her perception; thus, I would give her opinions no weight. As to matters within her expertise, Dr. Hall-Ellis testified that she searched the Wayback Machine and library cataloging resources (e.g., WorldCat) for PacketCable and did not find it as of December 1, 1999. 25:19–26:8, 36:13–15. She further testified that she has no knowledge of whether or how PacketCable was cataloged, on CableLabs’ website or elsewhere. Id. at 50:5–13, 51:10–52:8. This testimony is credible, as it is within her expertise. Thus, I believe Dr. Hall-Ellis that no sources typically consulted by librarians cataloged or recorded PacketCable in 1999. When her expertise is considered, all Dr. Hall-Ellis has been able to establish is that there is no evidence that PacketCable was stored or cataloged, in 1999, in the places where a librarian was apt to look.” slip op. at 108
- Skill levelOther
“VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION We interpret claim terms using “the same claim construction standard” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artUnpatentable
“Conclusion for Reasons to Combine We agree with Petitioner that Basturk teaches generating signatures “on-the-fly” as transmission proceeds in order to avoid slowing down the regular flow of data. Pet. 11 (quoting Ex. 1006, 12). We agree with Petitioner that Handley’s RTP protocol used for video conferences would benefit from Basturk’s protocol for high speed networks in order to provide secure video conferences as taught by Basturk. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used Basturk’s technique of computing signatures “on-the-fly” with Handley’s internet conferencing architecture to provide the known benefits of transmitting data faster, reducing jitter, and reducing computing power. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). We agree with Petitioner that Handley describes the need for providing authentication in a multicast environment, and that Basturk addresses this need as well as provides a solution. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1005, 13; Ex. 1006, 3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 68). We agree with Petitioner that modifying Handley’s RTP transport protocol to include Basturk’s known authentication method of generating signatures “on-the-fly” while transmitting data is “the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 70); KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In addition, we find that Dr. Houh’s testimony supports Petitioner’s reasons to combine Handley and Basturk. As discussed above, we find Dr. Houh’s testimony more persuasive than Dr. Stubblebine’s testimony because Dr. Houh’s testimony is supported by and consistent with the disclosures of Basturk and Handley. Dr. Houh testifies that generating a signature “on-the-fly” as data is being transmitted provides the benefits of transmitting data faster, reducing jitter, reducing computing power, and reducing latency in a live transmission. Ex. 1003 ¶ 64. We agree with Dr. Houh and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art, faced with the need to provide a signature at the application layer in Handley’s multimedia conferencing architecture as taught by Handley (Ex. 1005, 2, 13) while minimizing latency as taught by both Handley (Ex. 1005, 13–14) and Basturk (Ex. 1006, 7, 12), would have computed the signature “on-the-fly” as taught by Basturk (Ex. 1006, 7, 12) at the application layer of Handley to yield the benefits of authenticating data while minimizing latency as taught by Basturk. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–70. Dr. Houh testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art, in order to” slip op. at 40
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for patent owner
“Handley, Ex. 1005, qualifies as a prior art printed publication. I also disagree that Petitioner has shown that PacketCable qualifies as a prior art printed publication. Thus, I would not find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any claim of the ’682 is unpatentable. Accordingly, I dissent.” slip op. at 92
Patent outcomesUS 7,266,682 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,266,682
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.