- Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00983 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 10, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over Alexander and Cosper; the alternative Gregorio-based grounds did not establish unpatentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“112(f). Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). But if the term does not use the word “means,” then it is presumed not to be subject to Section 112(f). Id. “That presumption can be overcome, but only if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp., 948 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “The correct inquiry, when ‘means’ is absent from a limitation, is whether the limitation, read in light of the remaining claim language, specification, prosecution history, and relevant extrinsic evidence, has sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“both parties have asserted in the Apple Litigation that the “control component” requirement is a means-plus-function limitation subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f), despite the fact that the control component limitation does not recite “means for.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1012, 3–8; Ex. 1013, 13); PO Resp. 6–7. Indeed, the court in the Apple Litigation has concluded that the control component requirement is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and has construed that requirement accordingly: Function: receiving control signals input to the oscillating resonant module; receiving outputs from the one or more sensors; controlling oscillation of the mass to produce a vibration response according to the received control signals by generating, using one or more of the received sensor outputs, control outputs to an actuator that drives the mass to oscillate. Structure: a microcontroller, a processor, a microprocessor, or a CPU that performs the algorithm shown in Figure 45 or the algorithm described in the corresponding text. See, e.g., 31:19–32:13, and equivalents thereof. Ex. 2001, 10; Ex. 2002, 40. Because of the Apple Litigation record, Petitioner presents its challenges in the alternative, first applying a plain meaning approach to the control component requirement, and also analyzing the requirement under the construction adopted in the Apple Litigation. Pet. 3–5. We adopt the court’s construction in the Apple Litigation. 35 U.S.C.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s expert declarant contends that person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of vibration-generating systems; additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 27. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 2. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’882 patent specification.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“(1) Analogous Art Our reviewing court has stated that “[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotes omitted). While these two criteria are helpful in many instances, we must not lose sight of the key question at hand: what is “prior art” as that term is used in 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)? References that are “too remote to be treated as ‘prior art’” are excluded from the obviousness analysis. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741, 226 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The non-analogous art test provides helpful insight on the underlying question of what is “prior art” within the meaning of the statute; we should not, however, be blind to the reality of the circumstances of the case before us. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA (1979). Nor should we adhere to rigid and mandatory formulas that overly limit the inquiry. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 419.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,152,882 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,152,882 - Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. v. Palisade Technologies, LLPInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01009 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions; no trial was instituted under § 314(a).
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Some considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately twelve and nine years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s requests for discretionary denial are granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,281,314 - Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. v. Palisade Technologies, LLPInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01008 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR on the challenged patents under § 314(a), citing settled expectations and the holistic assessment of the parties’ arguments and evidence.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Some considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately twelve and nine years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01008. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01009. during prosecution are not persuasive. Under these circumstances, discretionary denial is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s requests for discretionary denial are granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,327,051 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. W&Wsens Devices Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00996 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of the IPR petitions under § 314(a), citing likely district court trial before the final written decision and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is December 24, 2026. DD Req. 12. The district court trial is scheduled to begin August 3, 2026, and time-to-trial statistics suggest trial could begin between August 2026 and early December 2026. Id. at 12–13; DD Opp. 15. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This favors discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately six years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. Further, Patent Owner provides evidence demonstrating Petitioner was aware of the challenged patents as early as 2020. Ex. 2001; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004. This further favors discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,446,700 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. W&Wsens Devices Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00995 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), citing trial timing, duplication risk, and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is December 24, 2026. DD Req. 12. The district court trial is scheduled to begin August 3, 2026, and time-to-trial statistics suggest trial could begin between August 2026 and early December 2026. Id. at 12–13; DD Opp. 15. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This favors discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately six years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. Further, Patent Owner provides evidence demonstrating Petitioner was aware of the challenged patents as early as 2020. Ex. 2001; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004. This further favors discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedInstitution denied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s requests for discretionary denial are granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,468,543 - Google LLC v. Cellular South, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00876 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-00876 under § 314(a), finding settled expectations and insufficient justification for using Board resources.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“The patents challenged in IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876 present different circumstances. In particular, these challenged patents have been in force for seven and six years, respectively, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408,” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,218,954 - Google LLC v. Cellular South, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00875 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876 based on settled expectations, and referred IPR2025-00877 to the Board for a decision on institution.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“The patents challenged in IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876 present different circumstances. In particular, these challenged patents have been in force for seven and six years, respectively, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00875. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00876 and IPR2025-00877. Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). In the absence of any such information, the Office is disinclined to disturb the settled expectations of Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,940,972 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00978 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petitions under § 314(a); no trial was instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in these proceedings. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence and arguments the parties have presented.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,028,793 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00977 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a); no trial was instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in these proceedings. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence and arguments the parties have presented. In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,770,756 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00975 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), citing likely district-court trial before the final written decision and other considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,832,708
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.