• Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00322 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations do not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251
• Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00083 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Socwell, Magid, and Sclater; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Prior to institution, Patent Owner argued that we should dismiss the Petition because it identifies the Petitioner as the California Corporation and not the Delaware Corporation. Paper 6, 23–24 (Preliminary Response); Paper 9, 1 (Preliminary Sur-Reply); Paper 12 (Conference Call Transcript); Paper 18 (Request for Director Review). In our Decision on Institution, we found Patent Owner’s argument, as applied to the facts of this proceeding, to be unpersuasive and corrected the caption to correctly reference Petitioner as the California Corporation, essentially replacing the “Inc.” with “LLC” in Petitioner’s name. Paper 13, 14–17; see also Paper 21 (Decision Denying Director Review).” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenOther

    “We find Dr. Giachetti’s testimony, alone, insufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSA, given Tollkien and Sclater, would have been motivated to look to one-way sprag-type clutches to solve the problem of unexpected forward motion of the running belt of a treadmill. Without a reference, like Magid, teaching that it was known to use a one-way clutch mechanism on a treadmill to prevent unexpected forward motion, we are persuaded by Patent Owner that Petitioner’s combination is impermissibly based in hindsight. See PO Resp. 42–47. After considering Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable over Tollkien and Sclater.” slip op. at 42

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “Declaration of Robert Giachetti, Ph.D. P.E) under FRE 401–402. Mot. 4 (citing FRE 401–402 in the heading). Patent Owner’s Motion, however, includes no substantive arguments directed to whether Giachetti Declaration is relevant admissible evidence or irrelevant inadmissible evidence. Mot. 4– 7. In its Reply, Patent Owner states: “While the Motion to Exclude does not expressly detail Exhibit 1036’s lack of relevance under FRE 401–402, the irrelevance is plain. Petitioner’s provision of new arguments in Reply, which is not allowed, renders such arguments irrelevant.” PO Reply to Mot., 1, n.1. Patent Owners argument is unpersuasive because it is a mere assertion without adequate explanation. The party moving to exclude evidence bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that the material sought to be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). Patent Owner’s mere assertion does not meet Patent Owner’s burden to show that Exhibit 1036 is irrelevant inadmissible evidence.” slip op. at 52

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “8 Patent Owner argues that we should not consider Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1036 and 1051 because the Reply and Exhibits relate to new arguments which should have been made in the Petition. PO Sur-Reply 4–5. We do not agree. Petitioner may rely upon Exhibits 1036 and 1051 to response to arguments raised in the Patent Owner’s Response. See PO Resp. (a ); Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronics, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, 1380–1382 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“we have continued to recognize that a petitioner is entitled under the APA to respond to new claim construction arguments made by a patent owner.”)” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 11,465,005 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,465,005
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 37–70 are unpatentable: claims 37–41, 47, 50–56, 58–59, 60–62, 64–65, and 70 as anticipated by Alden; the remaining challenged claims as obvious over Alden and the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). 3 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/70538 A2 (Exhibit 1010). 4 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/01038 (Exhibit 1006). 5 U.S. Patent No. 4,970,628 (Exhibit 1007). 6 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158 (Exhibit 1008). 7 U.S Patent No. 6,049,749 (Exhibit 1009). 8 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 02/04247 A1 (Exhibit 1011). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (PO Resp. 4), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claim Construction We construe claims using the standard that would be applied in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), giving terms their ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and prosecution history. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The Petition asserts that all claim terms should be given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” See Pet. 8. Patent Owner also proposes that the claim terms be given their ordinary meaning, and identifies the “ordinary meaning” for the terms “identify,” “turn,” and “curve,” which we discuss in our analysis below. We otherwise find that that no express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01353 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, supported by Dr. Staniford’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and four years of industry experience,” and “would have had a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23, 25). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, 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), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision” slip op. at 7

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

    “We largely agree with Patent Owner that there is no explicit claim- construction dispute. We address Patent Owner’s issues of what ordinarily skilled artisans would have considered in creating and implementing packetfiltering rules in the discussion below. The preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption is one aspect that those with a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks would have considered. Nonetheless, overall, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “configured to prevent an exfiltration operation,” does not require preventing all exfiltrations from occurring, nor allowing all non-exfiltration traffic, and that we need not consider the preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption in the context of that claim construction. We determine that no claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,567,343
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00446 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “how and why persons of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the existing rules to prevent exfiltrations. PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions to make them “drop” rules, per Sourcefire, relies on what an administrator could have done, not what they would have been motivated to do. Id. at 4–5 (citing Pet. 57–58). We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art, combining Sourcefire and Emerging Threats, would have understood that downloaded rules should be reviewed, and it would have been obvious to enable rules that such persons deemed appropriate. We find Dr. Staniford’s testimony to be persuasive on this point. See Ex. 2011, 67:10–68:24, 69:8–72; Ex. 1020, 109. We acknowledge that downloading all of a particualr ruleset from Emerging Threats and enabling all the rules, might have resulted in a drop in performance of the network appliance, but, at the same time, we are significant drop in performance, especially if a potential threat might be sufficient to warrant a minor performance hit. Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged at oral hearing that instituting all rules of a set in “alert” mode would not result in a decrease in performance, even though some computational outlay must be engaged to engage those alert rules. See Hr’g Tr. 24:24–25:4. We are persuaded that judiciously implementing certain rules would not necessary result in a network device that is unusable. Additionally, there is testimony from Dr. Staniford that “you start out with your rules in alert because there might be false positives. I mean, for the best rule in the world, Snort wasn’t known for false positives in the rules, when you apply them to a large network.” Ex. 2011, 68:2–7. As such, we continue to determine that it would have been obvious, in combining Sourcefire with Emerging Threats, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have downloaded rules and implemented specific rules.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner

    “Reviewing all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the Petition’s obviousness rationale based on Sourcefire and Emerging Threats is not guided by impermissible hindsight bias. We find persuasive Dr. Staniford’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “this rule [SID:2003021] was not directed to looking for instances of exploits or attacks (which would be invisible within the encryption) but rather was looking for exfiltration of some kind of encrypted data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. As discussed by Petitioner, such recognition was also made by Mr. Marinho and Dr. Goodrich, such that the rule would have been understood to possibly prevent exfiltrations. We continue to be persuaded that Petitioner provides that a correspondence exists between the REQUIRE-TLS-1.1-1.2 operator in the ’343 Patent and SID:2003021 in Emerging Threats, in that both detect an SSL/TLS version in application packet header field values to detect exfiltration attempts using out-of-date encryption protocols. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 229–230). We are ’343 Patent discloses the interruption of a similar type of exfiltration, without resorting to impermissible hindsight bias, that Patent Owner asserts. Patent Owner has provided no evidence that Petitioner used the specification of the ’343 Patent to find an applicable rule in Emerging Threats, as opposed to the testified-version provided by Dr. Staniford that he recalls “working on a similar feature where we looked for large encrypted transmissions outbound from the network on non-HTTP ports as a possible symptom of exfiltration of large amounts of data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,567,343
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-01320 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 26–28, 30–36, 65–68, and 70 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 29 and 69 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish sensed fog or snow.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, except that we omitted the qualifier “at least” and set the level of experience at two years. See Inst. Dec. 8. In its Response, Patent Owner stated that it “does not dispute the Board’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 3. We accordingly maintain the level of ordinary skill in the art we adopted in the Institution Decision. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “However, the reason we interpreted “light source” in the institution decision was that there was a question about whether the individual “microbeams” described in the Beam reference were “light sources.” See Inst. Dec. 11. Because, as explained below, we do not reach the Beam grounds, we need not construe “light source” in this final decision. We further find that that no other express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenMixed

    “measurement by sensor 9 is not affected by “scattered reflected light” due to “dirty cover glass 19”). Moreover, even if fog or snow might make the cover glass “dirty” nothing in Karlsson senses that. Instead, the reference simply explains that the switching of the light is helpful if the glass happens to be dirty. Sensor 9 is used to detect light, such as from oncoming vehicles, not fog or snow (see Ex. 1010, 9:9–26), and none of the other passages of Karlsson cited in the Petition describe sensing fog or snow. Petitioner does not identify anything in Harbers that senses fog or snow, and we do not find a description of that ourselves. Harbers describes adjusting the light based on vehicle velocity, the position of the steering wheel, “weather conditions,” or road type (e.g., motorway or country road). See Ex. 1011, 3:27–4:32. It seems reasonable to assume that the velocity and position of the steering wheel are sensed, and the reference indicates that light distribution for road type can be adjusted “by the driver.” Id. at 4:22–25. The reference is silent, however, on how the adjustment based on “weather conditions” is made. Dr. Jiao cites a passage from Braun about how its “headlights . . . are programmed . . . to detect fog and . . . provide light appropriate for driving in fog” (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 590), but Braun is not included in this ground in the Petition (see Pet. 3), and neither Petitioner not Dr. Jiao attempts to provide a reason to combine Braun for these claims. We conclude that, in order to show that these claims would have been obvious, Petitioner would have needed to show that sensing would have been disclosed or inherent in the Harbers/Karlsson combination, obvious in view of Karlsson and Harbers, or that it would have been obvious to add Braun’s fog detection to the Karlsson/Harbers combination. As Petitioner did not argue an express or inherent disclosure of fog/snow sensing in Harbers/Karlsson, did not argue that it would have been obvious to use fog/snow sensing in the Karlsson/Harbers combination, and did not include Braun in the combination, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown that claims 29 and 69 are unpatentable” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “This argument is not persuasive because, we conclude, it overstates the problem. These claims require bluish light towards the center and yellowish light to the side. Were an oncoming vehicle in the yellow area, corresponding yellow lights would be dimmed. Were the oncoming vehicle then moved to straddle the yellow and blue areas, the corresponding yellow and blue lights would be dimmed. And if the vehicle were to move to the blue area, the corresponding blue lights would be dimmed. We agree with Dr. Jiao that one of ordinary skill in this art, which is fairly predictable, would be able to avoid or sufficiently minimize any color shifting problems. See Ex. 1051 ¶¶ 162–165. We also credit Dr. Jiao’s explanation that, in the combination, there would only be “subtle variations of illuminated color within the range, such as bluish white and yellowish white” and that “all light would be recognized as white light (as defined in standards and regulations)” that not would be problematic in practice. See id. ¶ 167.9” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00328 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 26–28, 30–36, 65–68, and 70 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 29 and 69 were not shown unpatentable because the grounds did not establish sensed fog or snow.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, except that we omitted the qualifier “at least” and set the level of experience at two years. See Inst. Dec. 8. In its Response, Patent Owner stated that it “does not dispute the Board’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 3. We accordingly maintain the level of ordinary skill in the art we adopted in the Institution Decision. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “At institution, we interpreted the term “light source” as the Specification defines it: “any system that is capable of receiving an electrical signal and producing light in response to the signal.” Inst. Dec. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:7–10 (“As used herein, the term ‘light source’, LED or ‘solid state light source’ means any system that is capable of receiving an electrical signal and producing light in response to the signal.”)). Patent Owner agrees with that construction. See PO Resp. 6. However, the reason we interpreted “light source” in the institution decision was that there was a question about whether the individual “microbeams” described in the Beam reference were “light sources.” See Inst. Dec. 11. Because, as explained below, we do not reach the Beam grounds, we need not construe “light source” in this final decision. We further find that that no other express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We addressed this issue at institution, explaining that “we understand the asserted combinations” and that “[a]ssertions that both references disclose a particular claim element do not undermine or overly cloud Petitioner’s asserted combinations.” Inst. Dec. 15. That remains the case. Patent Owner’s attempt to spin some loose language in the Petition into “sixty-one grounds” (PO Resp. 7) is not persuasive, particularly after the institution decision, in which we explained how we viewed the combinations presented by Petitioner. See Inst. Dec. 11–13. The combinations are simply not as multiplicated and complicated as Patent Owner contends, and Patent Owner acknowledged at the hearing that the alleged multiplicity did not prevent it from addressing any issue. See Tr. 37:17–18 (“[Q]: Which of these did you address in your papers? [A]: We address every single one for every single claim.”). Patent Owner also argues that “[the] lack of particularity is compounded by Petitioner’s other two petitions challenging the ’503 Patent – Petitions that similarly implicate massive numbers of sub-grounds and comparably lacking particularity – resulting in Petitioner asserting at least 149 sub-grounds.” PO Resp. 19 (emphasis omitted). We again disagree with Patent Owner’s assessment of the number of “sub-grounds” at issue, and conclude, as we did at institution, that three petitions were justified given the number of asserted claims and differences in claim scope. See Inst. Dec. 15. D.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “a. Motivation to Combine Patent Owner first argues that “Harbers curved substrate alone has not been shown to add anything useful to the combination.” Patent Owner 56. This argument is unpersuasive because the combination does not require a curved substrate and Patent Owner does not address the motivation for the combination identified by Petitioner, which is that Harbers’ illumination schemes would have provided “improved visibility for different functions, thereby increasing safety.” See Pet. 82–84 (citing Ex. 1011, 5:14–26, 6:1–7, 6:27–7:19, 8:10–18, Figs. 1B–2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 450). b. Segmentation and Color Shifting Patent Owner next argues that “without segmentation the motivation to use Harbers hardware alone is lacking” and that “[f]urther, the use of Harbers’ colored array creates a color-shifting problem.” PO Resp. 57. With regard to “segmentation,” Patent Owner cities Section VII.A.2.b of the Response, which argues that “[w]hile the system would have included differently colored LEDs, there still would not be a single component of the combination that would have any idea how to segment the beams as Harbers suggests.” PO Resp. 34. We disagree. The combination contemplates use of Harbers’ illumination scheme, and Harbers explains, in connection with Figure 2, for example, how the light sources are controlled to produce the desired illumination pattern. See Ex. 1011, 7:20–9:6.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01296 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 56–64, 66, 68–72, 74, and 76–87 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 65, 67, 73, and 75 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish the required non-contiguous LED cluster.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “F. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner submits that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 10. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that term. 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)). Some of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments depend on claim scope, and we address those implicit claim-construction arguments below.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “claim construction: that a controller must associate a target’s identity with a prior target. But the claim language neither imposes nor supports any such requirement. Claim 72 is illustrative, in that it expressly states that the disputed language regarding “illumination provided to the target” is achieved “by repeating the determination of target location, selection of the 10 We agree with Petitioner that the Petition’s reference to “Beam’s system” is a clear typographical error and that the Petition’s substance and citations refer to Karlsson, not Beam. See Pet. Reply 20. cluster and variance to illumination provided to the target, relative to the laterally adjacent areas, based on the subsequent data.” Ex. 1035, 12:8–11. That supports Petitioner’s view that a system can “maintain a variance of the illumination provided to the target” by iteratively performing the “determine,” “select,” and “vary” steps. Claim 80 does not expressly state that steps are repeated, but instead requires the processor be able to identify “a plurality of positions associated with the target” and “change, responsive to the positions associated with the target, first light associated with” LEDs aimed towards the target as the target moves. Id. at 13:30–40. That language, like claim 72’s, does not impose an additional requirement of correlating a detected target to prior detected targets. Rather, it requires that a given target results in multiple identified positions that produce light changes. Based on our understanding of the claim language, Patent Owner’s assertion that, in Karlsson, “[e]ach subsequent detection of light is performed anew and has no relationship to a prior detection and may or may not correspond to the same target” (PO Resp. 52) does not preclude the claim from reading on Karlsson. As Petitioner has identified, the claim language reads on Karlsson’s system when a particular vehicle results in multiple, subsequent detections at multiple positions. Pet. 74. Although Patent Owner poses an alternative situation in which Karlsson’s system might detect other objects rather than the particular vehicle first detected (see PO Resp. 50–51), that does not undermine Petitioner’s showing because the claims do not require that a system perform only as claimed. That is, even if Karlsson’s system detects and accommodates additional targets, if a single target results in multiple light configurations, the claim language is satisfied. And Patent Owner concedes that Karlsson’s system produces “a darkened area that changes position over time due to movement of the vehicle providing light relative to various light sources.” Id. at 52. That admission is consistent with Karlsson’s disclosure that its system adapts to sensed objects by “intermittently, repeatedly controlling” its light beam. Ex. 1010, 2:30–3:6. We find that when Karlsson’s system controls light to prevent glare to an oncoming vehicle, that would result in the processor identifying a plurality of positions associated with the vehicle and varying light associated with LEDs aimed toward the vehicle. Thus, the record supports Petitioner’s position that claims 72’s and 80’s disputed language reads on Karlsson. 5. “select a second, different cluster . . . directed towards the other vehicle”” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. 56 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 110 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 156 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 59–61. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17– 110:4. While there may be some tradeoffs involved in using a different camera location than Nakamura discusses, those tradeoffs would be balanced by the benefits that Karlsson discloses from locating a camera with each headlamp. Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented as a lighting change by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have had reason to modify Karlsson’s system with Nakamura’s teachings regarding capturing and using image coordinates as summarized above.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00318 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 56–64, 66, 68–72, 74, and 76–87 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 65, 67, 73, and 75 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish the required non-contiguous LED clusters.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “F. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner submits that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 10. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that term. 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)). Some of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments depend on claim scope, and we address those implicit claim-construction arguments below.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “claim construction: that a controller must associate a target’s identity with a prior target. But the claim language neither imposes nor supports any such requirement. Claim 72 is illustrative, in that it expressly states that the disputed language regarding “illumination provided to the target” is achieved “by repeating the determination of target location, selection of the 10 We agree with Petitioner that the Petition’s reference to “Beam’s system” is a clear typographical error and that the Petition’s substance and citations refer to Karlsson, not Beam. See Pet. Reply 20. cluster and variance to illumination provided to the target, relative to the laterally adjacent areas, based on the subsequent data.” Ex. 1035, 12:8–11. That supports Petitioner’s view that a system can “maintain a variance of the illumination provided to the target” by iteratively performing the “determine,” “select,” and “vary” steps. Claim 80 does not expressly state that steps are repeated, but instead requires the processor be able to identify “a plurality of positions associated with the target” and “change, responsive to the positions associated with the target, first light associated with” LEDs aimed towards the target as the target moves. Id. at 13:30–40. That language, like claim 72’s, does not impose an additional requirement of correlating a detected target to prior detected targets. Rather, it requires that a given target results in multiple identified positions that produce light changes. Based on our understanding of the claim language, Patent Owner’s assertion that, in Karlsson, “[e]ach subsequent detection of light is performed anew and has no relationship to a prior detection and may or may not correspond to the same target” (PO Resp. 52) does not preclude the claim from reading on Karlsson. As Petitioner has identified, the claim language reads on Karlsson’s system when a particular vehicle results in multiple, subsequent detections at multiple positions. Pet. 74. Although Patent Owner poses an alternative situation in which Karlsson’s system might detect other objects rather than the particular vehicle first detected (see PO Resp. 50–51), that does not undermine Petitioner’s showing because the claims do not require that a system perform only as claimed. That is, even if Karlsson’s system detects and accommodates additional targets, if a single target results in multiple light configurations, the claim language is satisfied. And Patent Owner concedes that Karlsson’s system produces “a” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. 56 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 110 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 156 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 59–61. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17– 110:4. While there may be some tradeoffs involved in using a different camera location than Nakamura discusses, those tradeoffs would be balanced by the benefits that Karlsson discloses from locating a camera with each headlamp. Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented as a lighting change by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have had reason to modify Karlsson’s system with Nakamura’s teachings regarding capturing and using image coordinates as summarized above.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01225 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 24, 26, 28–32, 34, 36–40, 42, and 44–47 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 25, 27, 33, 35, 41, 43, and 48–55 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “F. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner submits that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–46, 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to 3 Beam, U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158, issued Nov. 7, 2000. Ex. 1005, code (45). 4 English translation of Satonaka et al., Japan Patent Publication No. H7-101291, published Apr. 18, 1995. Ex. 1014, 0001, code (43). 5 Kobayashi, U.S. Patent No. 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000. Ex. 1008, code (45). 6 Karlsson, WIPO Patent Publication No. 98/54030, published December 3, 1998. Ex. 1010, code (43). 7 English translation of Nakamura et al., Japan Patent Publication No. H7-65603, published Mar. 10, 1995. Ex. 1013, 0001, code (43). 8 Gotou, U.S. Patent No. 5,588,733, issued Dec. 31, 1996. Ex. 1012, code (45). integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner notes that, during reexamination of the ’551 patent, the Office interpreted “electronic circuitry apparatus for the controlled powering of the LEDs” as a means-plus-function limitation and identified the corresponding structure as “logic control electronics unit 7.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1002, 929–39; Ex. 1001, 25:34–52). Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 9. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that term. 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)).” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “As to the advantages of Karlsson’s lamp-located sensor, nothing about that arrangement would have changed in the proposed combination. As described, Petitioner proposes using aspects of Nakamura’s processing in combination with Karlsson’s physical system. See Pet. 54–58. Thus, the combination preserves any advantages Karlsson obtains by locating a sensor with each illumination system. As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. Reply 58 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 125 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 168 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 57–59. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17–110:4. It is inapposite that “Nakamura does not contemplate LEDs and therefore does not control light in a similar fashion” as Patent Owner argues (PO Resp. 60), because Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner

    “As to independent claims 24 and 32, Patent Owner does not assert any “unique characteristics that are novel and nonobvious over the asserted art.” See PO Resp. 70–71. Patent Owner asserts that claim 40 includes “adapting light emission to provide at least two dark zones with ‘light in-between’” and that the Stam declaration correlates that characteristic with the objective evidence. Id. The Stam declaration addresses claim language reciting illumination “that preserves a first level of illumination illuminating past the other vehicle while preventing glare to a driver of the other vehicle” and asserts that an article discussing that a commercial product’s “[i]ndividually controlled LEDs also provide two or more dark zones with ‘light in-between,’ allowing continuous use of a vehicle’s high-beams to maximize visibility and provide a safer driving experience.” Ex. 2023, 734 (Stam declaration ¶ 117) (quoting Ex. 2023, 182) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not explain and we do not understand the connection between the claim language recited in the declaration and that of claim 40. But even accepting that the reexamination exhibit shows industry praise for a system with claim 40’s feature, Patent Owner has not shown that the feature was novel. As discussed above, we conclude that Karlsson discloses that aspect of claim 40 without modification. See supra at 16 (§ II.B.5). Accordingly, even viewing Patent Owner’s evidence as credible and appropriate, we conclude that it would not establish the required nexus for claim 40. To be clear, Patent Owner’s asserted evidence would not establish nexus for any aspect of the independent claims, because each element is found in the prior art and the only elements for which Petitioner asserts a combination of prior-art teachings—those relating to image coordinates—are not those that Patent Owner relies on for a unique characteristic of the claimed invention. Patent Owner asserts further that industry praise was directed at the “Predictive Curve Illumination feature” recited by dependent claims that require the ability to “accommodate the upcoming road curvature” by adapting the light. PO Resp. 8, 70–71. Patent Owner relies on a report of a new lighting system used by BMW that states, “[t]he benefit of a glare-free function is not only to shadow out other cars but also to provide visibility for upcoming curves and dangerous situations; there is a clear safety gain by illuminating this curve in front of the driver.” Ex. 2023, 727 (quoting Ex. 2023, 177) (emphasis omitted). That statement does not itself establish a nexus to the “Predictive Curve Illumination” claims. Patent Owner asserts that the reexamination declaration correlated objective evidence with the “Predictive Curve Illumination” claims (PO Resp. 70–71), but cited portion of the declaration does not address that claim feature (see Ex. 2023, 728–34). Accordingly, Patent Owner has not established a nexus with the dependent claims. That the praised characteristics were found in the prior art is consistent with Patent Owner’s asserted evidence, which largely pertains to efforts to change U.S. regulations to permit the use of adaptive headlight technology. See Pet. Reply 28; Ex. 1053 ¶¶ 198–199. Thus, Patent Owner’s evidence does not support nonobviousness.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551

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.