• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00339 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 23, 28, and 30 are unpatentable over Choi, Labaziewicz, and Yu; claims 1–3, 10–12, 24, 25, 32, and 33 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “We decline Patent Owner’s invitation to construe “during a frame” of “independently controlling simultaneous data acquisition with each of the first and second channels during a frame” by importing the extraneous limitations “at some point between the beginning and the end of the exposure interval during which the image sensors capture a single image.” As pointed out by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is unsupported by the language of claim 22 and the ’180 Specification because Specification does not disclose an exposure interval nor suggest “during a frame” is limited to an exposure interval. Patent Owner and its expert Dr. Saber cite only extrinsic evidence (Exs. 2006, 2009) to support its argument that claim 22 should be limited to an “exposure interval during which the image sensors capture a single image.” See PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2020 ¶ 64. Similarly, Patent Owner relies only on extrinsic evidence (e.g., Ex. 2011, 1; Ex. 2022, 1; Ex. 2020 ¶ 66) to limit “during” to “at some point between the beginning and the end.” See id. at 18. When considered in the context of claim 22 and the ’180 Patent Specification which do not limit “during a frame” to an exposure interval, we find that we cannot rely on Patent Owner’s citations to extrinsic evidence to yield a reliable construction for “during a frame.” As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not provide an explicit construction for “during a frame” to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the merits of the patentability challenges. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375. We apply the ordinary and customary meaning for “during a frame.” To the extent that an explicit identification of the ordinary and customary meaning may aid the understanding of our analysis, consistent with the language of claim 22 and the ’180 Patent Specification, we find that the ordinary and customary meaning for “during a frame” is “during the period of time that data for an image frame is acquired.” See Ex. 1001, code (57), 20:6–24, 25:23–35.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” and that “[l]ess experience may be necessary with additional education, and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’180 Patent Specification and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Owner to show that Labaziewicz is not prior art because the ’180 Patent is entitled to the earliest August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”). Patent Owner’s arguments fail to meet this burden of production because, aside from addressing deficiencies of written description support the ’854 Provisional Application provides written description support for all of the limitations of the claimed invention. See PO Resp. 60–64; PO Sur-reply 25–28. Specifically, Patent Owner does not address written description support in the ’854 Provisional Application for “independently controlling simultaneous data acquisition with each of the first and second channels during a frame”––limitation [22.3]––the heart of the parties’ claim construction disputes addressed above in Section II.A. See PO Resp. 60–64; PO Sur-reply 25–27. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not met its burden of production in coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the claimed invention in the ’854 Provisional Application. As a result, the burden of production does not shift back to Petitioner, and, therefore, the ’180 Patent is not entitled to the benefit of the August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner does not present arguments that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Matsushima to acquire data for images 62A and 62B at the argues that Matsushima renders obvious this limitation. See id. at 21, 23, 30; PO Resp. 33–34 (“[T]he Petition provides no further explanation why Matsushima renders this limitation obvious.”). In the Reply for the first time, Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would understand that Matsushima’s disclosure, including its multi-channel architecture, synchronous control of channels, and capturing two images that are scaled versions of the same scene, renders obvious simultaneous acquisition during a frame. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 49). We do not consider Petitioner’s belated argument because it exceeds the proper scope of a reply. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “respond” “does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Trial Practice Guide at II.I. (December 2025)(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23).10 A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. See id. For example, a “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,916,180 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,916,180
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2026 · IPR2025-00339 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 23, 28, 30, and 33 are unpatentable over Choi, Labaziewicz, and Yu under § 103; claims 1–3, 10–12, 24, 25, and 32 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” and that “[l]ess experience may be necessary with additional education, and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’180 Patent Specification and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Owner to show that Labaziewicz is not prior art because the ’180 Patent is entitled to the earliest August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”).” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “We do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments based on retrieval of data from CCD 18A and CCD 18B. Although Matsushima’s CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B are driven synchronously by timing generator 28 (see Ex. 1007 ¶ 27), Matsushima discloses that “accumulated signal charges are retrieved by CCD drive pulses applied by CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B, and are sequentially output from CCD 18A and CCD 18B as voltage signals (analog image signals) corresponding to each signal charge” (see Ex. 1007 ¶ 23) (emphasis added). In other words, regardless of whether CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B are driven synchronously by timing generator 28, Matsushima discloses that voltage signals corresponding to the accumulated 8 Petitioner’s citation erroneously includes ¶¶ 34–36 of Exhibit 1069. CCD 18A and CCD 18B sequentially––not output at the same time or simultaneously.” slip op. at 30

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “argues that Matsushima renders obvious this limitation. See id. at 21, 23, 30; PO Resp. 33–34 (“[T]he Petition provides no further explanation why Matsushima renders this limitation obvious.”). In the Reply for the first time, Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would understand that Matsushima’s disclosure, including its multi-channel architecture, synchronous control of channels, and capturing two images that are scaled versions of the same scene, renders obvious simultaneous acquisition during a frame. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 49). We do not consider Petitioner’s belated argument because it exceeds the proper scope of a reply. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “respond” “does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Trial Practice Guide at II.I. (December 2025)(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23).9 A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. See id. For example, a “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id. Petitioner clarifies that the Petition does not argue inherency. See Pet.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,916,180 mixed
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,916,180
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2026 · IPR2025-00342 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6–11 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations did not teach guiding a vehicle to a fixed destination or calculating the claimed optimized path from stored destination data.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “reserves consideration of discretionary issues to the Director. The relief Patent Owner requests is that the panel exercise discretion to terminate these proceedings based on actions taken in related district court proceedings as done in Hulu. Supp. PO Resp. 2. Because the basis for Patent Owner’s requested relief is discretionary, the panel lacks the authority to grant the request. In this regard, the present situation is different from that in Hulu and Sinclair Pharma Limited v. Hydrafacial LLC (IPR2025-00145, Paper 41, Squires, Feb. 12, 2026), cited by Patent Owner. In those cases, the 9 Available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Director_Institution_of _AIA_Trial_Proceedings.pdf (“Director Institution Memo”). Director ordered de-institution, not the panel. The Director has not made such a determination or delegated such authority to the panel in these proceedings. Indeed, as noted above, Patent Owner has already briefed, and the Director has previously ruled on, discretionary denial issues. Paper 10. Accordingly, we decline to vacate our Institution Decision and focus our analysis on the merits of the case as presented by the parties.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id. Petitioner asserts that ordinarily skilled artisans “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and four years of work experience in image processing, automated vehicle control/navigation, or a related field.” Pet. 7. Petitioner’s proposed definition, which Patent Owner does not dispute, appears reasonable and consistent with the asserted prior art and the ’805 patent, and we adopt it here. See generally, PO Resp. Based on this record, and because there is no dispute, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’805 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Here, in our opinion, Patent Owner has shown that the Specification describes the potential destinations of a vehicle as limited to physically fixed, non-transient objects or features. PO Resp. 18–21. As an initial matter the ’805 patent is titled “Docking Assistant” and explains its purpose for guiding a “vehicle to a stop at a specific location.” Ex. 1001, codes (53), (57), Abstract. We acknowledge that claim 1 does not expressly recite that “at least one potential destination” is a fixed destination or location. See id. at 7:61– 63 (Claim 1 requiring “extracting from the acquired image data positional parameters of at least one potential destination relative to the motor vehicle;”). Yet, in the context of the relatively brief specification, there is no explanation, example, or embodiment which reasonably extends the meaning of “destination” or “potential destination” beyond a fixed location. The ’805 patent describes in the Abstract that [m]any day-to-day driving situations require that an operator of a motor vehicle guide the motor vehicle along a specific course and bring the vehicle to a stop at a specific location, for example in a parking bay or at a loading platform. Id. at code (57) Abstract. The Abstract explains in the next sentence that “[t]o assist a vehicle operator in such situations, a method and a suitable device for implementing this method, include detecting the potential target objects in the image data of an image sensor and identifying the potential target objects as potential destinations in a multi-stage exclusionary method.” Id. (emphasis added). Nowhere in this initial description of the invention, nor anywhere else that Petitioner points to, is there is expansion of the “specific location” or “potential destination” beyond a docking station or parking bay. Of course, the claim is not limited to these examples, as it would be inappropriate to read in such limitations from the Specification. See Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 771 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Acceleration again attempts to import structural limitations into claims lacking those limitations. . . . While the specifications discuss a broadcast channel overlaying a network, the claims at issue are not so limited.”).” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Majumder, testifies to the contrary that “[r]ead as an engineer, the ‘805 patent’s present invention is framed around guiding a vehicle to fixed, physical destinations (exemplified by docking stations and similar structures) without fiducials or special markings.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 81. Considering Broggi, Dr. Majumder testifies further that “[a] moving object, such as a preceding car, is not a valid destination under the ‘805 Patent, because it is not a stationary location at which the host vehicle can be guided to stop. To treat such a vehicle as a ‘potential destination’ would lead to collision, not guidance.” Id. ¶ 86. As discussed in our claim construction, given a plain reading of claim 1 in light of the Specification, our understanding of the ’805 patent is consistent with Dr. Majumder’s testimony. We agree that Broggi is directed expressly to the platooning of moving vehicles, and not physically fixed destinations as the proper claim construction requires. Because Broggi does not disclose the use of physically fixed “potential destinations” as required, e.g., in limitations [1.2]–[1.3], and neither Huttenlocher nor Brady are relied upon to overcome this deficiency, Petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Broggi in view of Huttenlocher and Brady.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,336,805 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,336,805
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00221 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 over Dateki; claims 3 and 7 over Dateki and Mate; and claims 4 and 8 over Dateki and Chitrapu.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “[w]ould have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the wireless communications systems that are pertinent to the ’889 patent. That person would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of wireless communication systems or design of similar communication systems. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 25). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally, PO Resp. Based on this record, and because there is no dispute, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’889 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “do not recite, as Patent Owner interprets it, that the extracted power control information upon which the UE bases its transmission of a signal be “the same” power control information extracted from the control message. PO Resp. 25. Where the claim is clear on its face, we decline to inject “the same” into the construction, that is, words that are not actually in the claim. Yet considering the plain language of claim 1, we mostly agree with Patent Owner’s interpretation, namely that “a transmission power level based on the extracted power control information,” as required in limitation [1.6] includes power control information extracted from “the control message,” in limitation [1.5] having “power control bits for a plurality of UEs” as recited in limitation [1.4]. Ex. 1001, 10:2–19. We understand and interpret the concluding limitation in method-type claim 5 in the same manner as limitation [1.6].” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “do not recite, as Patent Owner interprets it, that the extracted power control information upon which the UE bases its transmission of a signal be “the same” power control information extracted from the control message. PO Resp. 25. Where the claim is clear on its face, we decline to inject “the same” into the construction, that is, words that are not actually in the claim. Yet considering the plain language of claim 1, we mostly agree with Patent Owner’s interpretation, namely that “a transmission power level based on the extracted power control information,” as required in limitation [1.6] includes power control information extracted from “the control message,” in limitation [1.5] having “power control bits for a plurality of UEs” as recited in limitation [1.4]. Ex. 1001, 10:2–19. We understand and interpret the concluding limitation in method-type claim 5 in the same manner as limitation [1.6].” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “where packet transmission is conducted, “the transmission power control information is transmitted via the HS-SCCH as second transmission power control information TPCC at a shorter periodic cycle.” PO Resp. 11 (quoting Ex. 1005, 13:11–13). But in context, after describing transmission of TPCC 1 on F-DPCH, Dateki says “[a]lso, in a case where packet transmission is conducted, the transmission power control information is transmitted via the HS-SCCH as second transmission power control information TPCC at a shorter periodic cycle.” Ex. 1005, 13:8–13 (emphasis added). We find it significant that the word “also” is used by Dateki, here, to describe the relationship of TPCC 1 and TPCC 2 as used together. If the intent was to transmit and use only TPCC 2 on HS-SCCH when data packets are transmitted on HS-PDCH, it would have made more sense to say “alternatively,” and otherwise make clear that only TPCC 2 is transmitted. But they did not. On the other hand, the inventors certainly understood how to explain when TPCC 2 is not transmitted. For example, Dateki makes clear that in certain embodiments TPCC 2 is unnecessary and “transmission power control may be effectively realized without including transmission power control information in the HS-SCCH.” Id. at 14:33–35. The same cannot be said for TPCC 1.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 11,664,889 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,664,889
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2026 · IPR2025-00222 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–11, 13, and 14 are unpatentable over Yu and Miyazaki; claims 15, 16, and 19 were not shown unpatentable over Matsushima.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “at, and before, the earliest claimed priority date of the ’158 patent . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2–3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” adding that “[l]ess experience may be sufficient with additional education, and likewise, less education may be sufficient with additional work experience.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–18). Patent Owner does not offer a competing definition or dispute Petitioner's articulation. Based on the entire record, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art because that characterization, we find, is consistent with the ’158 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “We determine that the claims require a per-channel determination of integration time—that is, an integration time arrived at for each sensor or channel individually—and cannot be satisfied by a single global value merely applied uniformly across the sensors. We do not, however, read the independent claims to require that the per-channel integration times differ from one another.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We adopt the definition clearly and unambiguously set forth in the specification, which was likewise adopted by the Court in the related litigation. See Pet. 7–8, 55; Pet. Reply 1–2 (district court construing the term to mean “the time the image sensor collects and integrates signal from the scene”). The specification states that the integrated photo-charge “is directly related to the time the image sensor collects and integrates signal from the scene,” and that “[t]his is known as integration time.” Ex. 1001, 4:4–7. Accordingly, the ’158 patent demonstrates that the inventors indisputably acted as a lexicographer for the term “integration time.”” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “We construe “during a frame” to mean the period during which data for a single frame of an image is captured. The limitation is satisfied where the per-channel integration time is effectuated during the frame; it does not require that the integration time be re-determined mid-frame, nor does it require actuation of a “charge integration switch.” The specification’s only use of the phrase confirms this reading: “each camera channel is controlled during a frame under an independent integration time.” Ex. 1001, 3:45–50. Consistent with that usage, the specification describes selecting an integration time for each channel and then integrating the photo-signal “within a single frame of data,” and describes placing the charge-integration switch in a state to allow charge to accumulate for the selected period and then transferring the accumulated charge upon completion of the integration period. Id. at 4:51–54, 11:3–18. We decline Patent Owner’s proposal to require in-frame actuation of a charge-integration switch, for the same reason we decline to import that structure into “integration time.” We also decline to read the phrase to require mid-frame re-determination of the integration time, because the patent’s own embodiment selects an integration time and then integrates charge during the frame under that selected time. Ex. 1001, 4:51–54, 11:3– 18. So construed, “during a frame” is not redundant of the independentclaim limitation: it adds that the per-channel control occurs within a single frame (intrascene), as distinct from adjustment from one frame to the next (interscene).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 9,232,158 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,232,158
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 27, 2026 · IPR2022-01093 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand

  Claims 13 and 14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish that the received card information defines the memory location for the biometric signature.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed our Original Decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. ASSA Abloy AB, No. 2024-1492, 2025 WL 3134960, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), Paper 43. The Federal Circuit also noted that in light of the affirmance of our decision in another proceeding, IPR2022- 00600, challenging the same patent, the “errors the Board made in this appeal only extends to claims 3–18, which were not at issue in the other appeal.” Id. at *3 n 1. Therefore, in this proceeding, only challenged claims 13 and 14 remain. At the request of the parties, we permitted additional briefing addressing the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 44. Petitioner filed an opening brief (Paper 51 (“Pet. Remand Br.”)), and Patent Owner filed an opening brief (Paper 52 (“PO Remand Br.”)). Both parties also filed responsive briefs. Paper 54 (“Pet. Responsive Br.”); Paper 55 (“PO Responsive Br.”). This is a Final Written Decision on Remand addressing the patentability of the remaining challenged claims 13 and 14. To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “offers nothing to suggest that its card information ‘tells you’ where to store the fingerprint data.” ASSA ABLOY AB, 2025 WL 3134960 at *3. Reversing our determinations as to Hsu, the Court found that the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, “merely confirms the associative link between the card information and the biometric data. Still missing is any non-conclusory testimony that Hsu’s card information determines the memory location of the biometric data.” Id. at 8. Therefore, on remand, a central question is whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Tsukamura cures this deficiency. Petitioner has not done so. In the Petition, Petitioner relies on Tsukamura for teaching a specific location for storing fingerprint data. See Pet. 75 (stating that “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory”). Petitioner argues that “[t]hus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., ‘a memory location is specified by the card information.’” Id. at 75–76 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 215). In support, Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, testifies that “[i]f the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. However, considering the Federal Circuit’s decision, we determine such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039
• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2026 · PGR2025-00013 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 and 18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted prior art did not establish the claimed quick-connect system during reciprocation, and Clark was not analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prior art may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “During oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it would not object to the Board adopting the construction that Petitioner proposes in the district court litigation. JUDGE MARSCHALL: I think the Petitioner wouldn’t object if we adopted the construction that Petitioner proposed in the district court, especially the “designed to” construction, correct? MR. BERG: No. We wouldn’t object to that. And we think that our Petition is on all fours with that construction. Tr. 81:12–16. As Petitioner does not object to adopting its construction from the district court litigation, we construe claim element 1[e] in accordance with Petitioner’s construction from the district court litigation.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The invention, a reciprocating massage device, is in a predictable field, namely the electro-mechanical arts. Also, there is no evidence that the recited quick-connect system is complex, even considering Patent Owner’s alleged understanding of it. Rather, Dr. Pratt testifies that many different types of connectors, whether they require alignment or not, were known. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54–58. Given the predictability of the electro-mechanical arts and lack of complexity of the recited quick-connect system, a low level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement. See RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Given the predictability of electro-mechanical inventions such as the one at issue here, and the lack of complexity of the particular claim limitation at issue—i.e., reciting the length of a heating member—‘a lower level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement than for unpredictable arts.’” (quoting Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of the low level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the Specification’s example of a quick-connect system configured to secure the massaging head as the piston reciprocates fails to provide sufficient written description support for the “quick-connect system” recited in independent claims 1 and 18.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the Specification provides guidance as to what amount of deviation from a perfect cylinder is still “substantially cylindrical.” The Specification describes: Quick-connect system 600 includes a piston 602 that has a hollow-end bore 608 for receiving the shaft 621 of a massaging head 620. Located within the bore 608 of piston 602 is a cylindrical seat 604. Cylindrical seat 604 retains a magnet 606. Magnet 606 is illustrated with its north pole located flush with the seat and facing toward the opening in bore 608. Massaging head 620 includes a shaft 621 having a cylindrical pocket 622 at the distal end. Located within the cylindrical pocket 622 is a magnet 624. Magnet 624 is positioned so that its south pole is located at the distal end of shaft 621. Accordingly, when the shaft 621 of massaging head 620 is slid into opening in bore 608, the magnets 606 and 624 are attracted to one another and magnetically hold massaging head 620 firmly in place. Ex. 1001, 6:57–7:3. In view of the description of quick-connect system 600, the Specification sets forth a standard for ascertaining whether the bore and the seat located within the bore are “substantially cylindrical.” To wit, the bore and the seat within the bore are “substantially cylindrical” when the massaging head and magnet are respectively received therein so that the magnet in the seat and the magnet in the pocket of the massaging head can magnetically hold the massaging head firmly in place. Furthermore, Dr. Pratt testifies that “[m]agnetic connectors comprise a magnet on at least one of the two objects to be joined. These types of connectors are ubiquitous even today for driving threaded fasteners.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 56. Dr. Pratt also testifies that a POSITA would understand how to take into account certain variances, like runout. Ex. 2033, 25:3–17. Dr. Pratt’s testimony shows that magnetic connectors are well known and that a POSITA would be able to determine whether the bore and the seat within the bore were “substantially cylindrical” for a secure connection of the massaging head. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the claim term “substantially cylindrical” recited in claims 13–16 fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, the shapes of the bore and the structure within the bore. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of claims 13–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,938,082 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,938,082
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 8, 2026 · IPR2022-01094 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand

  Claims 3–12 and 15–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish that card information defined the memory location for storing the biometric signature.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring [inter partes review] petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring a petition for inter partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon). That burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Consistent with our Original Decision, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’039 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of human-machine interfaces and device access security. Additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. Limitation 3(da) The issues on remand revolve essentially around limitation 3(da): Limitation 3(da) – storing the inputted biometric signature in a memory at a memory location defined by the provided card information; Ex. 1001, 12:61–63. Considering limitation 3(da) in our Original Decision, we explained that during an enrollment process the claimed “biometric signature,” e.g., a fingerprint, is not yet stored in the memory, and no memory location or address has been “defined,” as in “set” or “established,” in the memory for storing the fingerprint, until card information is received. Once the card information and fingerprint are received during enrollment, the card information provides data that establishes where, i.e., at what memory location or address, the system will store the fingerprint data. Original Decision 16.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable

    “Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a fingerprint database (44) and retrieve reference fingerprint data previously stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is set or established “at a memory location defined by the provided card information” as recited in claim limitation 3(da). Taking a close look at Petitioner’s testimonial evidence as to claim 3, we first note Mr. Lipoff testifies that Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. But, concomitant with the Federal Circuit’s point, such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC card information to define “as in ‘set’ or ‘establish[]’” a memory location, as our claim construction requires. See Section II.C.3.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039
• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2026 · PGR2024-00053 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · PGR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 34–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 unpatentable under § 112(a), § 112(b), or any asserted § 103 ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ proffered definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art differ in the details of the experience a POSITA would possess. Petitioner’s definition requires experience with rotating or reciprocating mechanisms, whereas Patent Owner’s definition requires experience with devices for human use and interaction. These differences, however, do not affect our analysis of the issues in this case. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “During oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it would not object to the Board adopting the construction that Petitioner proposes in the district court litigation. JUDGE MARSCHALL: I think the Petitioner wouldn’t object if we adopted the construction that Petitioner proposed in the district court, especially the “designed to” construction, correct? MR. BERG: No. We wouldn’t object to that. And we think that our Petition is on all fours with that construction. Tr. 81:12–16. As Petitioner does not object to adopting its construction from the district court litigation, we construe claim element 34[e] in accordance with Petitioner’s construction from the district court litigation.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The invention, a reciprocating massage device, is in a predictable field, namely the electro-mechanical arts. Also, there is no evidence that the recited quick release connector is complex, even considering Patent Owner’s alleged understanding of it. Rather, Dr. Pratt testifies that a POSITA would be able to recognize a quick release connector for a particular application. According to Dr. Pratt, A person of ordinary skill in the art would consider a number of factors, depending on the context and specific application of the connector, to determine whether a connector provides a “quick release.” Such factors could include whether the connector is designed to manually and easily connect and disconnect two objects, and whether tools are necessary to do so. Other factors to be considered may be based on the specific application or operating environment. Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Given the predictability of the electro-mechanical arts and lack of complexity of the recited quick release connector, a low level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement. See RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Given the predictability of electro-mechanical inventions such as the one at issue here, and the lack of complexity of the particular claim limitation at issue—i.e., reciting the length of a heating member—‘a lower level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement than for unpredictable arts.’” (quoting Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of the low level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the Specification’s example of a quick release connector configured to secure the massaging head as the piston reciprocates fails to provide sufficient written description support for the “quick release connector . . . configured to secure a first massaging head while the piston reciprocates a predetermined stroke length at the first speed” recited in claim element 34[e]. 4. Conclusion for Written Description For the reasons set forth above in sections II.C.1–3, Petitioner has not persuaded us that any aspect of claim element 34[e] lacks written description support. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 34, as well as any of claims 35–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 depending therefrom, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 18

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the Specification provides guidance as to what amount of deviation from a perfect cylinder is still “substantially cylindrical.” The Specification describes that quick-connect system 600 includes two magnets with opposite poles facing each other: magnet 606 in the distal end of piston 602 and magnet 624 located in cylindrical pocket 622 of massaging head 620. Ex. 1001, 6:57–67, Figs. 6, 6A. The Specification further describes that “when the shaft 621 of massaging head 620 is slid into opening in bore 608, the magnets 606 and 624 are attracted to one another and magnetically hold massaging head 620 firmly in place.” Id. at 6:67–7:3. In view of the description of quick-connect system 600, the Specification sets forth a standard for ascertaining whether the pocket is “substantially cylindrical.” To wit, the pocket is “substantially cylindrical” when the pocket receives a magnet therein so that the magnets can magnetically hold the massaging head firmly in place. Furthermore, Dr. Pratt testifies that “[m]agnetic connectors comprise a magnet on at least one of the two objects to be joined. These types of connectors are ubiquitous even today for driving threaded fasteners.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. Dr. Pratt also testifies that a POSITA would understand how to take into account certain variances, like runout. Ex. 2033, 25:3–17. Dr. Pratt’s testimony shows that magnetic connectors are well known and that a POSITA would be able to determine whether the pocket was “substantially cylindrical” for a secure connection of the massaging head. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the claim term “substantially cylindrical” recited in independent claim 34 fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, the shape of the pocket. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 34, as well as claims 35–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 depending therefrom, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 11,857,482 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,857,482
• Apple Inc. v. Apex Beam Technologies LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00903 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Kim, Dahlman, and Kim-966 combination renders the claims obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen 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); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’110 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted

    “966 renders obvious this limitation. See Pet. 50–53. With respect to the “first signaling,” Petitioner argues that the combination teaches “the UE [user equipment] receiving a ‘system information block (‘SIB’) (a first signaling) which can include various types of information such as ‘information about the allocation of subframes to uplink/downlink and configuration of the special subframe in the case of TDD [time division duplexing].” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1007, 358–62; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 21, 65; Ex. 1003 ¶ 100). Petitioner argues that “[b]ecause the SIB assigns time resources or an ‘allocation of subframes for uplink/downlink,’ an SIB would be understood to function as and render obvious as assigning the UE a collection of time intervals (e.g., subframes) or ‘time resource pools.’” Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1007, 358–62; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 60–61, 64–78, 84; Ex. 1003 ¶ 113). Petitioner contends that “a POSITA would have understood and found obvious that the first signaling (SIB) is used to determine an ‘allocation of subframes to uplink/downlink’ (a first time resource pool) through an assignment of a Time Division Duplexing (TDD) configuration.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 113). Petitioner submits that “[t]he TDD configuration would identify a series of subframes available for uplink and downlink (a first time” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner contends that “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard,” and that “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner agrees “that claim construction is not required to resolve any issues.” Prelim. Resp. 2. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Mandayam, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’110 patent “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.” Pet. 12. Petitioner additionally contends “[a]dditional education might substitute for some of the experience, and additional substantial experience might substitute for some of the educational background.” Id. Patent Owner “utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 2. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’110 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art). We note that our decision would be the same applying either party’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,546,110

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.