- Adobe Inc. v. Jonathan E. JaffeNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01352 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted §103 ground because the references did not teach monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and memory.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The Institution Decision adopted and applied Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because Petitioner’s “definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The parties present various claim construction arguments, disputing the meaning of three limitations recited in claim 1: “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory”; “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor”; and “based on.” See Pet. 9–14; PO Resp. 5–12; Pet. Reply 4–9; PO Sur-reply 4–11. For purposes of this Decision, we do not need to discuss the construction of “based on.” 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)). As explained below, this Decision turns on whether Glass or Rieger discloses limitation [1c] reciting “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–66; see infra §§ II.C.2, II.E.1, II.F. That limitation recites an element which overlaps with the earlier-recited limitation “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory.” To reach our decision, we need only provide a limited discussion of two of the parties’ claim construction arguments. Our analysis follows.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–21:2. Although Petitioner points out that the limitation does not expressly recite “‘specifically’ monitoring the tight coupling” (Pet. Reply 8), the structure of the clause suggests that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. At a high level, the limitation is straightforward in its recitation that the integrity being monitored is “of the tight coupling” (Ex. 1001, 20:65–66 (emphasis added)), plainly suggesting that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. More granularly, breaking the relevant clause down to its grammatical parts, the clause recites a gerund (“monitoring”) acting on a direct object (“the integrity”) which is modified by a prepositional phrase (“of the tight coupling”). Notably, the object of the preposition (“of”) is “the tight coupling.” Altogether, this reads that the integrity being monitored is specifically of the tight coupling. Also, the claim recites that “if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Therefore, from the claim language we know that the “integrity” of the tight coupling is something that may be “compromised,” which is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of determining whether the physical coupling has been “accessed or disturbed.” Petitioner’s interpretation effectively inserts additional language into the limitation such that the limitation includes monitoring the integrity of a device containing or surrounding the tight coupling, such as a camera (or camera housing), e.g., “monitoring the integrity of a camera that includes the tight coupling.” But, because the plain reading and the structure of the limitation reads that it is specifically the tight coupling’s integrity—not another physical structure, like a camera—which is being monitored, a monitored is not consistent with the language of the claim. See PO Resp. 9 (arguing that “Petitioner’s construction is improper because the claim language explicitly requires monitoring the physical coupling between the memory and the sensor as opposed to some third structure” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“package 50 does not specifically monitor the integrity of the coupling between Glass’s sensor and the memory and, instead, argues that Glass detects tampering of all “the components and interconnections contained in that packaging,” e.g., control logic 44, cropper 46, compressor 47, MUX 45, code generator 48, and the various interconnections between those components. See Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1005, 5:13–41. As explained above, we construe “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor” to mean determining whether the physical 7 Petitioner does not assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Glass’s device in any way; Petitioner solely argues that Glass teaches limitation [1c], based on Petitioner’s proposed claim construction. See Pet. 30–32 (“Glass discloses this limitation.”); Pet. Reply 16–17 (“Glass and Rieger disclose the ‘monitoring’ step.”). disturbed, which specifically requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory. See supra § II.C.2. As we agree with Patent Owner that this limitation requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory, monitoring Glass’s tamper resistant package 50 does not teach or disclose “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that Glass teaches or suggests [1c] monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor when said at least one internal and unique parameter is generated, and, if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity, as required by claim 1. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Glass.8” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 6,757,828 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,757,828 - Biofrontera Inc. / Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01312 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 16, 17, and 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Lundahl and Larsen; Ground 2 was conceded, and the motion to exclude was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not provided a valid justification for requiring a POSITA to have both an engineering degree and a medical degree. Prelim. Resp. 22. We agree, insofar as Petitioner has not clearly set out any particular explanation or evidence in support of its dual-degree requirement. In all other respects, we note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar. Because we determine that Patent Owner’s proposed definition is reasonable and consistent with the ’028 patent and the cited art, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition. In any event, our Decision does not turn on this level of skill determination. B.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“device “[f]or the treatment of large-area tissues,” such as the backs of human patients, wherein several applicators 13 are “flexibly connected to each other through hinges.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 72). Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have been motivated “to incorporate Larsen’s solution of connecting light applicators by hinges, to allow for adjustability of Lundahl’s device to provide the desired irradiance and irradiance uniformity to all target areas during PDT.” Id. (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 127). According to Petitioner, a “POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Lundahl with Larsen, because both references describe similar illuminators for using light to treat conditions on a patient’s skin.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 128). Petitioner’s proposed modification of Lundahl also involves using LEDs as a light source instead of Lundahl’s fluorescent tubes. Id. According to Petitioner, a POSITA would have been motivated to make this change because: (1) LEDs had a lower cost and a longer lifetime than fluorescent tubes; (2) fluorescent tubes were known to have inconsistent light output within the tube itself; and (3) “the use of LEDs would be more practical to reduce spacing between light sources and the edges of the panels, as opposed to the bulky metal couplings at the end of fluorescent tubes, to reduce optical dead space across the light surface.” Id. (citing Ex. 1014, 4:41–42, 6:31–42; Ex. 1015 ¶ 129). Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification because Lundahl and Larsen “describe similar illuminators and the conversion from fluorescent tubes to LEDs was a routine practice prior to 2015.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 131). Patent Owner does not meaningfully dispute the Petitioner’s proposed reasons to combine Lundahl and Larsen. See generally PO Resp. To the extent Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would not have been motivated to make the combination because it would negatively affecting uniform illumination (PO Resp. 24), the motivating benefit here—using adjustable LED panels instead of monolith fluorescent tubes—outweighs the alleged disadvantages for the many reasons given by Petitioner, including greater adjustability and improved LED performance. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify.”); Reply 14. We are persuaded that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Lundahl and Larsen for the reasons advanced by Petitioner.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner’s reasoning (i.e., that it would have been obvious to try placing the hinges on the inner side surfaces) is unsupported and conclusory. PO Reps. 53–54. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to identify a single prior art reference showing hinged structures on inner side surfaces. Id. This argument ignores that Larsen expressly identifies hinges on at least bottom side surfaces, and Petitioner merely proposes modifying their location from the bottom sides to inner sides. We find credible Dr. Grove’s testimony that relocating hinges would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1015 ¶ 155. Dr. Jokerst testifies that a POSITA would have been discouraged from placing hinges between Larsen’s adjustable applicators, because the hinges would create gaps that interfere with uniform illumination as well as the panels’ wiring, and create issues with the use and alignment of the panels. Ex. 2050 ¶ 175. However, a system with discrete panels connected by hinges (like in Larsen) will already have wiring, use and alignment technical challenges, regardless of the location of the hinges— the expected consequence of connecting multiple movable electronic panels. Moreover, the ’028 patent acknowledges in its discussion of conventional illuminators that placing hinges between panels was already known. Ex. 1001, 2:7–15. With respect to Dr. Jokerst’s opinion that the hinges would create gaps negatively affecting uniform illumination, we are persuaded that it would have been within the skill of a POSITA to locate the hinges on the inside surfaces “in a nearly flush arrangement,” such that the gaps would be minimized. Id.; Ex. 1015 ¶ 155. We also credit Dr. Grove’s supplemental testimony on this issue, directly refuting Dr. Jokerst’s testimony regarding gaps and uniform illumination (and therefore within the proper scope of reply, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument otherwise (Mot. 9). See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 17–20 (explaining LED light divergence and that the physical space caused by hinges “is easily addressed” to maintain uniform illumination).9 We further point out that the ’028 patent also suggests that gaps do” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Jokerst testifies that a POSITA would have been discouraged from placing hinges between Larsen’s adjustable applicators, because the hinges would create gaps that interfere with uniform illumination as well as the panels’ wiring, and create issues with the use and alignment of the panels. Ex. 2050 ¶ 175. However, a system with discrete panels connected by hinges (like in Larsen) will already have wiring, use and alignment technical challenges, regardless of the location of the hinges— the expected consequence of connecting multiple movable electronic panels. Moreover, the ’028 patent acknowledges in its discussion of conventional illuminators that placing hinges between panels was already known. Ex. 1001, 2:7–15. With respect to Dr. Jokerst’s opinion that the hinges would create gaps negatively affecting uniform illumination, we are persuaded that it would have been within the skill of a POSITA to locate the hinges on the inside surfaces “in a nearly flush arrangement,” such that the gaps would be minimized. Id.; Ex. 1015 ¶ 155. We also credit Dr. Grove’s supplemental testimony on this issue, directly refuting Dr. Jokerst’s testimony regarding gaps and uniform illumination (and therefore within the proper scope of reply, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument otherwise (Mot. 9). See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 17–20 (explaining LED light divergence and that the physical space caused by hinges “is easily addressed” to maintain uniform illumination).9” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 11,697,028 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,697,028 - Geneoscopy, Inc. v. Exact Sciences CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01330 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 4, and 12–19 are unpatentable as obvious under each asserted ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
- Expert testimonyOther
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“embody claims of the ’746 patent, the product has features not covered by the ’746 patent’s claims, some of which are critical unclaimed elements according to Patent Owner. Accordingly, Cologuard is not coextensive with the challenged claims, and no nexus between the product and the challenged claims is shown on this record.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“developed where the patient need not manipulate their fecal sample to portion it, but the law of obviousness does not require an option to be the best option to be obvious. For these reasons, bearing in mind that the ultimate burden here is always on Petitioner, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. We also reject Patent Owner’s argument that only impermissible” slip op. at 60
Patent outcomesUS 11,970,746 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,970,746 - Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 30, 2026 · IPR2021-01449 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Remand
Claims 3–5 are unpatentable; claims 1 and 2 are not shown unpatentable. Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over the applied grounds under the remand construction of “movement vector.”
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“was incorrect, vacated the Final Written Decision as to claims 3 and 4, and remanded the case to the Board to determine the ordinary and customary meaning of “movement vector” and decide the outcome for claims 3 and 4 in accordance with that meaning. Atos, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2025 WL 1482404, at *5 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025); Paper 35 (“Federal Circuit Remand,” “Remand,” or “Fed. Cir. Remand”). Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s instructions, the Board authorized the” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“considered individually and together, have well-understood, common meanings to ordinarily skilled artisans as of the invention date, reflected by the ’174 patent’s specification and other evidence of record noted above. Accordingly, we determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of “movement vector” is “a vector indicating movement of an object.” 3) “operation indicator” Petitioner” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Dr. Kanellakopoulos’s explanation that angular momentum is not inherent to an object, and its computation requires an arbitrary choice of a point of origin that has no physical meaning in the context of vehicle motion, also supports Patent Owner’s position. Id. ¶ 71 (citing Ex. 2004, 262). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument, that angular momentum cannot be used to detect a vehicle turning, is persuasive. Id. We also find persuasive, as Dr. Kanellakopoulos explains, that Petitioner’s argument regarding the figure on Kleppner 234 is based on misinterpretation of the vectors in that figure. Id. ¶ 67 (explaining that Kleppner 233–234 does not depict a gravity vector).” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Kleppner does not disclose a rotation vector, a person of ordinary skill would have used the knowledge of a rotation vector (because it is a term of art) alongside Kleppner’s teaching, to arrive at claim 1. See Pet. Reply 11. This argument does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Petitioner does not explain which teaching of Kleppner a person of ordinary skill would have selected and combined with their knowledge of a rotation vector to yield the method of claim 1, or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have recognized based on Kleppner that estimating the angle between a rotation vector and gravity vector could be used to detect a vehicle turning. Nor does Petitioner respond to Patent Owner’s assertion that Kleppner provides no rationale for estimating an angle of alignment between a rotation vector and gravity vector as a way of detecting a vehicle turning. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 65.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 9,846,174 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,846,174 - Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v. Ellodi Pharmaceuticals, L.P.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2025-00055 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s motion, entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–42 after statutory disclaimer, and terminated the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Under the Rules, actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Here, Patent Owner has disclaimed, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321, claims 1–42 of the ’407 patent, which constitute all challenged claims involved in this trial. See Ex. 2031. We thus construe the statutory disclaimer as a request for entry of adverse judgment. Having reviewed the statutory disclaimer, we determine that adverse judgment against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1–42 of the ’407 patent is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,486,407 - Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v. Ellodi Pharmaceuticals, L.P.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00054 · APJ John G New · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s unopposed motion and entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner as to claims 1–16 after statutory disclaimer.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include … [d]isclaimer of the involved application or patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(1). We find that good cause exists to grant Patent Owner’s unopposed request for adverse judgment and to terminate this proceeding. Consequently, we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate and Request for Adverse Judgment. slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,246,828 - Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v. Ellodi Pharmaceuticals, L.P.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00052 · APJ John G New · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s unopposed motion and entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner as to claims 1–17 following statutory disclaimer of all claims.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include … [d]isclaimer of the involved application or patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(1). We find that good cause exists to grant Patent Owner’s unopposed request for adverse judgment and to terminate this proceeding. Consequently, we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate and Request for Adverse Judgment. slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,632,069 - Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v. Ellodi Pharmaceuticals, L.P.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00056 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–30 after it statutorily disclaimed all claims, and terminated the IPR.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [d]isclaimer of the involved application or patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(1). We find good cause exists to grant Patent Owner’s unopposed request for adverse judgement and to terminate this proceeding. Thus, we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate and Request for Adverse Judgment. slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,260,061 - Facebook, Inc. / SAP America, Inc. et al. v. Express Mobile, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 16, 2026 · IPR2022-00518 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Remand
Claims 1–4 and 6 are unpatentable under §103 because the prior-art combinations teach limitations 1(c) and 1(g) under the proper construction of “style.”
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“As directed by the Federal Circuit, we determine whether the prior art combination teaches limitations 1(c) and 1(g) under the proper construction of “style,” but otherwise do not revisit our analysis of claim 1. Remand Opinion 7, 13–14. The Federal Circuit construed “style” to mean “a collection of one or more settings that is defined separately from any single object but can be associated with one or more objects,” with the understanding that “associated with one or more” means capable of being associated with both one object and more than one object. Id. at 14.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Because the Specification discloses that data defines an object, we construe the plain meaning of the claimed “object,” read in light of the Specification of the ’168 patent, as encompassing data that defines the object. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (The “specification . . . is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996); (Excluding an embodiment in the specification from “the scope of the patent claim . . . is rarely, if ever, correct.”). Further, because the Specification discloses that data defines image objects, and that objects include images, we construe the plain meaning of the claimed “image object,” read in light of the Specification, as encompassing data that defines an image, such as one of the 12 different pocket watch images of Lemay Web.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner. As discussed above, the plain meaning of an “image object” read in light of the Specification encompasses data that defines an image, such as each of the 12 different pocket watch images of Lemay Web. Ex. 1004, 89–90. Therefore, the HTML file of Lemay Web, which specifies attributes including width, height, pause value, and repeat value of the pocket watch image objects, is “capable of being applied to more than one” image object, such as each of the 12 different pocket watch image objects described by Lemay Web. Id.” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The Board and Petitioner understood the meaning of “or” in the phrase “one or more objects” in Patent Owner’s proposed construction of style as meaning that “a style . . . can be associated with just one object.” Dec. 22; see Reply 4–5. The Federal Circuit “ultimately conclude[d] that Express Mobile’s proposed construction, with ‘or’ properly interpreted,” means “that the claimed ‘style’ must be capable of being applied to both one and more than one ‘object,’” and “remand[ed] for further proceedings in view of the correct claim construction.” Remand Opinion 13. In doing so, the Federal Circuit stated that “[i]t may be that under the correct claim construction, the Board finds that Lemay Web teaches the claimed ‘style’; however, that is still an open fact question for the Board to decide in the first instance.” Id. at n.6. Given that the Federal Circuit has ordered the Board to determine whether the prior art teaches the claimed “style” under the proper construction, we find that Petitioner’s arguments on this issue are timely.” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,168 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,594,168 - Facebook, Inc. / SAP America, Inc. et al. v. Express Mobile, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 16, 2026 · IPR2022-00572 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Remand
Claims 1–4 and 6 are unpatentable under §103 because the prior-art combinations teach the limitations at issue under the Federal Circuit’s construction of “style.”
RulingsRemand decision- RemandDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Lemay Web discloses that the style settings of width, height, pause, and repeat for the pocket watch images can be changed by changing the values for width, height, pause, and repeat in the HTML file. Ex. 1004, 89–90. This results in changing the size, duration, and frequency of the display of the multiple pocket watch image objects without changing the image files or the Java applet. Id. That is, the 12 image objects of Lemay Web can be uniformly formatted by applying and altering the style settings of the HTML file, which is stored separately from the image objects and the Java applet. Id. at 88– 89. In our Final Written Decision, we wrote that “Lemay Web discloses that the image files that are displayed as the animation object are separate from the HTML.” Ex. 1004, 88–89.” Dec. 22. The Federal Circuit wrote that “how the Board evaluated what constitutes separateness in the prior art software is less than clear.” Opinion, 13 n.7. To be clear, the animation of Lemay Web comprises 12 different pocket watch image objects. Ex. 1004, 89. The HTML file that contains the style settings for the 12 different pocket watch image objects is stored separately from the 12 different pocket watch image objects. Id. at 88–91. The style of the 12 different pocket watch image objects can be altered by changing the values of the style settings in the separate HTML file, thus allowing the style to be uniformly applied to each of the associated 12 pocket watch image objects when the pocket watch image objects are created on the web page. Id.; see Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 28–29; Dec. 21–22. In conclusion for issue (B), we find that Lemay Web teaches applying the style located in the separate HTML file to the pocket watch image objects when creating the pocket watch image objects on the web page. Therefore, Lemay Web’s style is “defined separately from any single object” as claimed. Because Lemay Web’s style can be applied to one object and more than one object and Lemay Web’s style is defined separately from any single object, we find that the prior art combination teaches limitations 1(c) and 1(g) under the proper construction of “style.”” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“As directed by the Federal Circuit, we determine whether the prior art combination teaches limitations 1(c) and 1(g) under the proper construction of “style,” but otherwise do not revisit our analysis of claim 1. Remand Opinion 7, 13–14. The Federal Circuit construed “style” to mean “a collection of one or more settings that is defined separately from any single object but can be associated with one or more objects,” with the understanding that “associated with one or more” means capable of being associated with both one object and more than one object. Id. at 14.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Because the Specification discloses that data defines an object, we construe the plain meaning of the claimed “object,” read in light of the Specification of the ’168 patent, as encompassing data that defines the object. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (The “specification . . . is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996); (Excluding an embodiment in the specification from “the scope of the patent claim . . . is rarely, if ever, correct.”). Further, because the Specification discloses that data defines image objects, and that objects include images, we construe the plain meaning of the claimed “image object,” read in light of the Specification, as encompassing data that defines an image, such as one of the 12 different pocket watch images of Lemay Web.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“What you see in the bottom right is an excerpt from the Lemay Web book . . . [y]ou can still use the Java applet just by putting this applet code into your HTML file. So this shows the animator class is going to be run within height or how big a window within the browser should be allocated in this applet. You can . . . tell the animator class how long to pause in between each image. So that’s a style that’s being applied to all of the multiple images that make up this animation. Ex. 2029, 746:23–747:7. Patent Owner then asked GoDaddy’s expert “for each unique animation you want to create with this animator class that’s shown here, you’re going to have to have a unique set of HTML code with the settings along with any of the images you’ll want to associate with the animator class, right?” Ex. 2030, 793:7–11. GoDaddy’s expert testified, with reference to Exhibit 2027, 80, that “Yeah. I’m not a hundred percent sure I understand your question, but yes, if you had six animations on a page, for example, you’d have six blocks of markup that looked like the markup at the bottom right of that slide, starting with applet.” Id. at 793:12–16. In addressing Patent Owner’s question about “each unique animation,” GoDaddy’s expert provided a hypothetical example of a web page having six animations, and explained that the six animations have six blocks of markup. Ex. 2030, 793:13–16. We find that this testimony means that if a web page has six unique animations, then for each unique animation, a corresponding HTML file contains the style settings for the image objects of that animation, such that the “six animations on a page . . . have six blocks of markup.” Id. We find that the subsequent testimony of GoDaddy’s expert cited by Patent Owner is consistent with the expert’s initial testimony that Lemay Web’s style is “applied to all of the multiple images that make up this animation.” Ex. 2029, 747:5–7. We also find that the subsequent testimony is consistent with and supported by the disclosure of Lemay Web, which teaches that an animation has a set of image files and is added to a Web page using the Animator applet. Ex. 1004, 88 (“[Y]ou’ll learn just enough about Java applets to set up animation on your Web page. . . . To create animation using Java and the Animator applet, you’ll need . . . [a] set of image files . . . that make up your animation.”); see id. at 88–91. That is, Lemay Web, consistent with the testimony of GoDaddy’s expert, discloses that the style settings for the animation of the pocket watch in the HTML file are uniformly applied to the 12 pocket watch image objects. Id. at 88–91.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,168 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,594,168
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.