- LG Electronics, Inc. / LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00351 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–6, 11, 14–16, 21, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“6. Whether Choi and Kim Are Printed Publications Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) Multimedia contends that Choi and Kim are not printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) because they were not published before the ’040 patent’s priority date of August 17, 2012. PO Resp. 13–14. Multimedia referenced a case pending at the Federal Circuit, Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., as pertinent to addressing whether applications for patent published after the priority date of the challenged patent are permissible “printed publications” in IPRs. Id. Multimedia’s arguments are not persuasive because on January 14, 2025, the Federal Circuit in Lynk Labs Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., clarified that inter partes review challenges may be based upon published patent applications, and such published patent applications can be deemed prior art in IPRs as of their filing date. 125 F.4th 1120, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2025). As such, both Choi and Kim are prior art pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the final record before us, we determine the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Lippman, LG argues the following: [a] Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art . . . in August of 2012 would have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the interactive media guide arts that are pertinent to the ’040 patent. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of television systems and networking, human-computer interaction, or related technologies. Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). In its Response, “Patent Owner accepts the Petitioner’s definition of the POSITA” and Multimedia and its expert, Dr. Surati, “find that definition to be reasonable.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 43, 44). Accordingly, we adopt LG’s assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’040 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Based on the final record, including the parties’ contention that no claim term requires express construction, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms, and thus we do not construe any claim terms except as discussed below with respect to limitation 1.6. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“highlighted when a user selects this content source in some manner. Ex. 1001, 30:27–51. At that juncture, after a user selects the content source and it is highlighted, the content source is then associated with the first content information, “801 – CNXN,” which is displayed on the right panel of Figure 15B. See id. We do not understand the ’040 patent as requiring the display “801 – CNXN” to cause the corresponding highlighting of Live TV 1504A as suggested by Multimedia. The claim language requires the two elements “being associated with”5 one another, but it does not require that one element’s display (first content information) causes the highlighting of the other element (content source). Our view is supported by the only description of highlighting a content source found in the specification of the ’040 patent. In regard to Figure 15B, the specification describes that “global panel 1404 may include one or more sources represented by icons and text, or shortcuts, 1504A-E.” Ex. 1001, 30:27–28. The specification describes how highlighting the source is user directed: Global panel 1404 may additionally indicate a source that is selected or highlight [sic] using indicator 1512; for example, indicator 1512 may comprise a box positioned around Live TV 5 As the Federal Circuit has explained, “the plain meaning of associating relates to a mere commonality.” Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2014), overruled by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (on unrelated grounds). 801 CNXN. Although illustrated as a box, other methods or configurations which provide for icon selection and/or identification may be used. For example, instead of a box, indicator 1512 may comprise adjusting the background of an icon and text, such as 1504A for example, such that the color, shade, or hue is different. Id. at 30:41–49 (emphasis added). Highlighting, as the specification describes, occurs when a user selects a source using indicator 1512 and that source is boxed or differentiated by color or shading. Id. The specification, in relation to Figure 15C, further describes a user moving indicator 1512 to another source such that the “the content or a preview of the content may be displayed in active content area 1408.” Id. at 32:9–17 (“For example, FIG. 15C illustrates an image or video associated with Skyfalls being displayed in content area 1408.”). Thus, the specification is clear that the highlighting function results from user selection of the source and the corresponding association of the first content information with that source flows from that user selection. See also id. at 2:30–31 (describing a purpose of the ’040 patent as “an Intelligent TV with intuitive user interfaces and with seamless user interaction capability”), 32:35–43 (“[t]he user . . . move[s] the focus box”). This supports our understanding that the claim language does not require that the display of first content to cause the highlighting of a displayed source identifier.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,510,040 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,510,040 - LG Electronics, Inc. / LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00353 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, 8–10, 12–17, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious over Kim, WD-Manual, and Bae, with Coburn added for claims 6, 12, and 19.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“See Pet. 123 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 267, 269). LG argues—and we agree—that, because Kim already provides functionality that updates the EPG information when the user performs a search, it would not require a leap of logic to incorporate Bae’s channel number selection window 330 that contains numbers 0 to 9, together with Coburn’s technique that predictably narrows the channel identifiers displayed based on the user selecting numbers sequentially, into Kim. See id. at 123–126. LG merely reiterates this position in the Reply and, therefore, does not shift its obviousness theory with respect to dependent claim 6. See Pet. Reply 38–41. c. Summary In summary, LG has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of dependent claims 6, 12, and 19 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, WD-Manual, Bae, and Coburn.” slip op. at 85
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,055,254 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,055,254 - PTAB · May 2, 2025 · IPR2024-01450 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Dziong and Sathyanath.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’088 patent (January 2006), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately four years of experience working in the field of network communications, including experience with [Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)] tunnels and bandwidth allocation,” where “[a]dditional work experience can substitute for specific educational background, and vice versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable and familiar with the network communications technologies discussed in [the Specification of the ’088 patent], including bandwidth reservations, quality of service techniques, routing protocols (including Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)), tunneling protocols (including [MPLS]), resource reservations (including Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)), traffic engineering (including relevant extensions to OSPF, IS-IS, and RSVP), and ring networking standards (e.g., Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and resilient packet ring (RPR) defined by IEEE 802.17). Id. Patent Owner states that “Petitioner’s definition . . . is acceptable for” purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8 n.3. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’088 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’088 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner argues that “no claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 12–13. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Preliminary Response. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“Patent Owner, however, does not explain sufficiently why any of these issues demonstrate a failure to teach limitation [1.1]. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that Dziong identifies “two or more candidate routes” (i.e., A-B-C-D and A-C-D) for a “new connection” (i.e., a new recovery path to protect primary path SRLG 4 in the event of failure) with a “requested bandwidth” (i.e., 15 units) sufficient to protect against failure. See Pet. 27–31 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 70, 89, 90, 104, 105). The 15 units are the “units of demand” on SRLG 4 that must be protected. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 89 (“[E]ach solid line represents all of the demands that have the same link-detour path, which is represented by a corresponding broken line. For example, solid line 606 in SRLG 4 corresponds to one or more demands totaling 15 units of bandwidth between nodes A and D.”), 90. A link in a potential recovery path for that demand on SRLG 4, therefore, would need to have “sufficient recovery bandwidth” to protect against failure (i.e., at least 15 units). Id. ¶¶ 36, 104. That is reflected in the “SRLG 4 failure” column of Figure 6(b) for link A-B (part of the A-B-C-D recovery path shown in blue in Figure 6(a) above). On this record, we do not see why the fact that link A-B also protects against failures of SRLG 3 and 5 and has its own 12 units of demand, or the fact that SRLG 4 also has another 24 units of demand (which link A-B does not protect against), contradicts Petitioner’s position regarding Dziong and limitation [1.1]. See id. ¶¶ 89–90 (“link A-B is not part of the link-detour path for the other 24 XC units of demand on SRLG 4”). At this stage, we find that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Dziong teaches limitation [1.1]. Therefore, we need not evaluate any additional arguments regarding Sathyanath at this time. See Pet. 31–32; Prelim. Resp. 14–16.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We disagree based on the current record. Dziong refers to both “link-based” and “path-based” recovery. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6–8. And the two methods are similar in various ways, as Dziong recognizes. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 69 (“While some of the algorithms utilized in a link-based scheme are related to path-based recovery algorithms, there are significant modifications and special considerations that are made in the case of link-based recovery.”), 103 (“In some areas, the issues associated with recovery path calculation for link-based recovery [are] analogous to recovery path calculations for path-based restoration . . . .”). Dziong also purports to incorporate Sathyanath’s application by reference. Id. ¶ 1. And, as Petitioner points out, the references have similar disclosures and similar discussions of bandwidth sharing. See Pet. 1, 20–22; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 10–12, 36–39, 60, 65, 88; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4, 12–13, 41–45, 200. Thus, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider combining the teachings of Dziong and Sathyanath. See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.”); In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming an obviousness determination where two “references both teach processes directed to making the same class of products” and minor differences between the disclosures did not “negate the motivation to combine”). Second, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “fails to identify specific teachings in Sathyanath that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to implement in Dziong with a reasonable expectation of success” and “does not explain how the features would have been combined or why there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner, however, only mentions Petitioner’s introductory statement regarding reasons to combine and does not address the substance of Petitioner’s arguments for claim 1, where Petitioner explains how it is relying on Sathyanath as a secondary reference. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 22–23). For example, regarding the “sharing definition” of limitation [1.2], Petitioner argues that because Dziong only gives “limited details about the data format used for sharing” reserved bandwidth information, “it would have been obvious to consider . . . Sathyanath’s examples,” relying on two particular alleged “sharing definition[s]” in Sathyanath (i.e., the “aggregate node-link vector” and “TE/Share database”). Pet. 36–39. Based on the current record, we preliminarily find that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing, supported by the testimony of Dr. Mir, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such data formats to share reserved bandwidth information in the system of Dziong, with a reasonable expectation of success. See id.; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–39, 72–79.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,596,088 - LG Electronics, Inc. / LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00696 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable under any of four §103 grounds because the cited combinations did not teach the claimed content-dependent first panel.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, we find: (1) the temporal “currently” (shown or displayed television content) term recited in steps 1.3 and 1.4.2, and (2) the associated temporal dependency resulting from the antecedent basis requirements of step 1.5.1, weigh strongly in favor of Patent Owner’s claim construction of claim 1 for the disputed step 1.5.1 claim terms “the application panel interface” and “based on” (emphases added).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We find Patent Owner thus correctly concludes that “[o]ptions region[] 1020 [in Woods’ Figure 10] (which Petitioner corresponds to the step 1.5.1 “first content panel” Pet. 43) is not displayed based on the currently-displayed content, even if the displayed content happens to correspond to the selected program listing.” Sur-reply 7 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 174; PO Resp. 26–28; Ex. 2011 ¶ 148) (emphasis added). We find Options region 1020 in Woods’ Figure 10 is instead based on user selection as argued by Patent Owner. Sur-reply 7.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner on this point regarding Petitioner’s proposed combination of Woods and Machida, given that neither of the proposed versions of Woods’ options region 1020 (displaying general “cast information” in Figure 10), nor Woods’ options region 1020 (alternatively displaying “detailed information” about cast member “Milo” (as depicted in Fig. 11) when the “DETAIL INFO” tab is selected by the user in functions menu bar 1010 of Fig. 10), performs playback of content display in media region 1030. See also Ex. 1005, Fig. 11.” slip op. at 53
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Based upon our review of the complete record, we credit Dr. Surati’s testimony that the information in Woods’ options region 1020 (i.e., the first content panel as mapped by Petitioner (Pet. 43; Pet. Reply 16–17)), is determined independently of any currently displayed program content, and what is displayed (e.g., the cast of “Heroes” as depicted in Figure 10) is in fact based on the selected program listing, which does not teach or suggest 1.5.1 (nor recitation 1.5.2 “wherein the first content panel is a first type of application panel”). Ex. 2011 ¶ 143. We find persuasive Dr. Surati’s testimony that “a POSITA would readily understand that the information displayed [in Woods’] region 1020 [of Figure 10] is based on the selected program listing (e.g., Heroes 912) made by the user in Figure 9, not the currently-displayed content in media region 1030 of Figure 10.” Id. (emphases added). In support, Dr. Surati further testifies that “[i]n fact, region 1020 of Figure 10 presents information about the selected program listing for Heroes and is not based on the Mercedes advertisement displayed in media region 1030.” Id.; see also id. at ¶ 144 (depicting Ex. 1005, Fig. 10 above paragraph 144) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 9,247,174 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,247,174 - LG Electronics, Inc. / LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00352 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable because Woods, alone or combined with Istvan and/or Machida, did not teach the claimed content panel based on currently displayed content.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Lippman, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’174 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of television systems and networking, human-computer interaction, or related technologies,” and that a “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner indicates it “accepts the Petitioner’s definition of the POSITA.” PO Resp. 9–10. Based on the final record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the final record, we are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’174 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, we find: (1) the temporal “currently” (shown or displayed television content) term recited in steps 1.3 and 1.4.2, and (2) the associated temporal dependency resulting from the antecedent basis requirements of step 1.5.1, weigh strongly in favor of Patent Owner’s claim construction of claim 1 for the disputed step 1.5.1 claim terms “the application panel interface” and “based on” (emphases added). We emphasize that we are not reading a “dependency” from the ’174 patent specification into the claim. Rather, we conclude a temporal antecedent basis under the plain language of the claim for step 1.5.1 and “wherein” clause 1.5.2.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“region[] 1020 [in Woods’ Figure 10] (which Petitioner corresponds to the step 1.5.1 “first content panel” Pet. 43) is not displayed based on the currently-displayed content, even if the displayed content happens to correspond to the selected program listing.” Sur-reply 7 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 174; PO Resp. 26–28; Ex. 2011 ¶ 148) (emphasis added). We find Options region 1020 in Woods’ Figure 10 is instead based on user selection as argued by Patent Owner. Sur-reply 7.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“But Patent Owner disagrees: A POSITA would readily understand that the two user operation panels of Machida are for playback/navigation of content presented in the content display area. The operation panels are very distinct from the function options menu 1020 of Woods’ Figure 10 that the Petitioner alleges to be the claimed “first content panel” (when displaying “cast information” for a selected program listing like Heroes) and the claimed “second content panel” (when displaying “detailed information” for the same selected program listing). PO Resp. 67–68 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 250). Patent Owner additionally argues that a “POSITA would not modify Woods’ options region 1020 displaying ‘cast information’ with either of Machida’s operational panels for playback of content.” PO Resp. 68. In support, Patent Owner emphasizes that “Woods’ options region 1020 displaying ‘cast information’ does not perform playback of content displayed in media region 1030. Likewise, Woods’ options region 1020 displaying ‘detailed information’ about a selected program listing does not perform playback of content displayed in media region 1030.” PO Resp. proposed combination.” PO Resp. 69 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 252). We agree with Patent Owner on this point regarding Petitioner’s proposed combination of Woods and Machida, given that neither of the proposed versions of Woods’ options region 1020 (displaying general “cast information” in Figure 10), nor Woods’ options region 1020 (alternatively displaying “detailed information” about cast member “Milo” (as depicted in Fig. 11) when the “DETAIL INFO” tab is selected by the user in functions menu bar 1010 of Fig. 10), performs playback of content display in media region 1030. See also Ex. 1005, Fig. 11.” slip op. at 52
Patent outcomesUS 9,247,174 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,247,174 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01420 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–19 on all presented grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable, and declining Fintiv discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–19 of the ’402 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’402 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Petitioner filed a Sotera stipulation. Paper 11. Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation “mitigates any concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board, as well as concerns of potentially conflicting decisions.” Sotera, Paper 12 at 19 (citing Sand Revolution, Paper 24 at 12). Accordingly, this factor weighs against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 46
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’402 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent technical training. Additionally, they would have at least three years of experience in designing or programming internet-related processes, such as user profile management and/or web-based targeted advertising.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55). For purposes of the Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’).” Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“According to Petitioner: “Because the prior art asserted herein discloses the preferred embodiment within the indisputable scope of the claims, the Board need not construe the outer bounds of the claims as part of these proceedings.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶ 57). Patent Owner responds that, at the preliminary stage of this proceeding, “no term needs explicit construction to resolve any controversy between the parties.” Prelim. Resp. 9. We do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision on institution. 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))).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,562,402 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01316 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 on all three obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Home Depot would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“In the absence of specific evidence, we will not attempt to predict how the district court in the related district court litigation will proceed because the court may determine whether or not to stay an individual case, including the related one, based on a variety of circumstances and facts beyond our control and to which the Board is not privy.” Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp. – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (Decision Granting Request for Rehearing) (informative) (“Sand Revolution”). If Home Depot were to file a motion to stay in the EDTX Litigation, we decline to speculate how the district court would rule on such a motion. Accordingly, this factor is neutral. slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“RavenWhite does not dispute Home Depot’s assertion that the Examiner did not meaningfully address Hinton and Varghese, either alone or in combination, during prosecution of the ’823 patent. See Ex. 1003. Stated differently, with respect to factor (a), the Examiner did not apply the teachings of Hinton and Varghese, either alone or in combination, to teach 6 All references to the page numbers in the prosecution history of the ’823 patent refer to the page numbers inserted by Home Depot in the bottom, right-hand corner of each page in Exhibit 1003. or suggest the limitations of the originally presented claims of the ’823 patent, nor did the Examiner apply the teachings of these references to account for language that was added via amendment during prosecution (i.e., a “first client device browser storage area” and a “second client device browser storage area”). With respect to factor (b), RavenWhite does not provide an explanation as to how the teachings of Flash that were applied by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’823 patent are cumulative to the teachings of Hinton and Varghese applied by Home Depot in the Petition. Turning to factor (d), RavenWhite asserts that there is overlap between arguments that were presented during prosecution of the ’823 patent to distinguish the then-pending claims over Flash and the arguments presented in the Preliminary Response to distinguish the challenged claims over Hinton and Varghese. See Prelim. Resp. 25. This overlap, by itself, does not warrant discretionary denial because, as we explain below, Home Depot persuasively explains how the teachings of Hinton and Varghese account for the claimed “first client device browser storage area” and “second client device browser storage area.” See infra Section II.D.4.b and II.E.2.b. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by RavenWhite’s arguments that the Petition presents substantially the same art or arguments that were considered previously by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’823 patent. b. Becton, Dickinson Factors (c), (e), and (f) Advanced Bionics further informs our evaluation of factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics indicates that satisfying the first part of the framework is a prerequisite to reaching the second part of the framework. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8, 10. As we explain above, we determine that the Petition does not present the same or substantially the same art or arguments that were presented previously to the Office during prosecution of the ’823 patent. As a result, we need not reach whether Home Depot has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims of the ’823 patent. 2. Summary For the reasons given above, we conclude that the circumstances presented here do not warrant exercising our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). Notably, the Examiner did not meaningfully address Hinton and Varghese, either alone or in combination, during prosecution of the ’823 patent. As a result, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“construction standard as in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). That is, claim terms generally are construed in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent at issue. See id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term “is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent,” and “as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Dr. Wills, Home Depot argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’823 patent (October 31, 2006) . . . would have had a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience with computer networks and digital information transmission techniques or other relevant industry experience. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 65). In the Preliminary Response, “[RavenWhite] applies [Home Depot’s] definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Pet. 6). At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Home Depot’s uncontested assessment of the level of skill in the art because (1) it is consistent with the ’823 patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Wills.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,594,823 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01250 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–5, 7, 9–16, or 20 unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Min’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s [degree] in [electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science], physics, or equivalent, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures, protocols and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 59). Dr. Min testifies that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. Additionally, Petitioner contends that Dr. Min “exceeded this level of experience by the priority date.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1010 (curriculum vitae of Dr. Min)). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’946 patent and 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).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Neither party contends that any claim terms require an express construction to resolve the present controversy. Pet. 8 (“For purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner does not believe any terms require a formal construction.”); see generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, Petitioner explains that the Petition is structured such that “Ground 1 is based on Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the district court litigation, where the claimed ‘MUD module’ is generally mapped to multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) receivers in a wireless network.” Pet. 2. Petitioner contends that “[u]nder this broad interpretation of a ‘MUD module,’ Walton’s MIMO receiver renders every challenged claim obvious.” Id. In contrast to Ground 1, the Petition states that “Ground 2 is based on the plain meaning of ‘MUD module,’ which is a component that detects, separates, and decodes signals from multiple users transmitting simultaneously over the same frequency band.” Id. Petitioner contends that, “[a]pplying the correct meaning of the term, Walton’s MIMO receiver does not necessarily comprise a MUD module.” Id. Therefore, Petitioner explains that “Ground 2 combines Walton with Learned, which expressly discloses [a] multi-user detector, and thus renders every challenged claim obvious in combination with Walton.” Id. at 2–3.7 In other words, the Petition presents Ground 1 and Grounds 2/3 as alternatives depending on the meaning of 7 Although not specifically relevant to claim construction, Petitioner explains that “Ground 3 further combines Walton and Learned with Quigley, to the extent Patent Owner argues Walton does not disclose providing a burst control input.” Pet. 3. “MUD module,” where Ground 1 is based on Petitioner’s understanding of Patent Owner’s interpretation of the term and Grounds 2 and 3 are based on Petitioner’s interpretation of the term as having its plain meaning. Petitioner further contends that “[e]very other claim term carries its ‘ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . .” Id. at 8. Although Petitioner presents a potential dispute regarding the meaning of “MUD module,” we need not construe this term expressly because the determination we reach herein does not depend on which meaning MUD module is applied. Accordingly, we do not construe any claim terms expressly because express constructions are not necessary to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owners contends that the factors set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), weigh heavily in favor of discretionary denial. Prelim. Resp. 40–46; Paper 10. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 74–77; Paper 9. In light of the conclusion reached above, we need not address the parties’ arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,089,946 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01248 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11, 16, and 21 unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’071 patent and 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).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes a specific construction of any claim term, although Petitioner contends each term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 16; see generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because the meaning of the terms is not in dispute and an express construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We find the Petition lacking in particularity because it does not clearly identify what aspect of Jin is alleged to teach the unique signal parameters (or unique estimated signal parameters) recited in claim 1. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if — (3) the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim . . . .”). First, as reflected above, the Petition asserts that something called a “unique pilot parameter” teaches the recited unique estimated signal parameters. But “unique pilot parameter” is not a term or phrase recited in Jin. See Prelim. Resp. 19 (arguing the same). So, when Petitioner states “Jin discloses that the base station uses the unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique estimated signal parameters’) to ‘identify which user (i.e., mobile terminal) has transmitted the received data,’” it is not clear what element in Jin Petitioner intends to identify by the term “unique pilot parameter.” Dr. Min’s testimony does not help resolve the ambiguity in the Petition. In particular, Dr. Min also refers to a “unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique signal parameter’) for each user.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 89. But, as noted above, Jin does not disclose an element referred to as a “pilot parameter” and it is not clear what element Dr. Min intended to identify in Jin.8” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,814,071 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. 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)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483
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.