- Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00782 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated prior-art grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“Here, as Petitioner points out, “[n]one of the elements of the Challenged Claims . . . use the word ‘means,’” similar to the challenged claims in the previous related proceedings. Pet. Reply 2–3; see also IPR2024-00405, Ex. 1001, 22:43–60; IPR2024-00407, Ex. 1001, 22:36–49; IPR2024-00573, Ex. 1001, 21:51–65. As the Federal Circuit stated, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Based on the record before us, this presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6 is not overcome.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. In particular, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the District Court provided a construction for “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service,” as recited in claim 1. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2002, 26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” as we determined in the Decision to Institute, this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Dec. Inst. 9. As we explained, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Id. Thus, as we previously explained, by determining that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, the District Court did not construe the term “enabled.” Id.; see also Ex. 2002, 26. Accordingly, nothing in the Memorandum provides a construction of “enabled” as Patent Owner contends. Id. Thus, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that Buer does not disclose the “enabled” limitation because, in Buer, “no key is provided in exchange for the information.” PO Resp. 33. That is, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction that an application, function or service is “enabled” by a PDK “when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key.” Id. at 32.” slip op. at 39
- Skill levelOther
“B. Principles of Law A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-obviousness.10 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. In particular, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the District Court provided a construction for “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service,” as recited in claim 1. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2002, 26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” as we determined in the Decision to Institute, this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Dec. Inst. 9. As we explained, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Id. Thus, as we previously explained, by determining that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, the District Court did not construe the term “enabled.” Id.; see also Ex. 2002, 26. Accordingly, nothing in the Memorandum provides a construction of “enabled” as Patent Owner contends. Id. Thus, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that Buer does not disclose the “enabled” limitation because, in Buer, “no key is provided in exchange for the information.” PO Resp. 33. That is, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction that an application, function or service is “enabled” by a PDK “when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key.” Id. at 32. Here, as Petitioner points out, Buer discloses an authentication component for providing credentials to a service provider to authenticate access to secured services, wherein the authentication component generates an RF signal providing the necessary authentication information to a service provider. Pet. 45; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152, 174. Buer further discloses a mobile device with an RFID client to authenticate a user to another processing system, the mobile device transmitting an enablement signal to a computer with a point-of-sale device. Pet. 47; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 192–195. We find availing Petitioner’s contention that Buer’s authentication component “enables” a wide variety of applications, functions, or services. Pet. 56. Petitioner’s contention is supported by Dr. Wolfe’s testimony and is consistent with the teachings of Buer. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that Buer teaches “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service on one or more of the hybrid device and a device associated with the external RDC,” as recited in claim 1. v. Claim 1 Conclusion Based on the complete record presented, Petitioner has shown that Buer teaches all limitations of claim 1. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Buer.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 8,646,042 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,646,042 - Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00075 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the asserted combinations of Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer, and Nishikawa.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“Challenged Claims. . . use the word ‘means,’” similar to the challenged claims in the previous related proceedings. Pet. Reply 3; see also IPR2024- 00405, Ex. 1001, 22:43–60; IPR2024-00407, Ex. 1001, 22:36–49; IPR2024- 00573, Ex. 1001, 21:51–65. As the Federal Circuit stated, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Based on the record before us, this presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6 is not overcome.” slip op. at 18
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See PO Resp. 4; Pet. Reply 2; PO Sur-reply 10. However, we addressed similar arguments with respect to this issue in previous related proceedings. See IPR2024-00405, Paper 24 at 8–25; IPR2024-00407, Paper 25 at 8–26; IPR2024-00573, Paper 27 at 8–29. In fact, during Oral Argument in this proceeding, Patent Owner acknowledged that “this panel construed the claims at issue in [previous proceedings,] IPR2024-573 and 2024-407.” Tr. 20:3–5. In particular, Patent Owner acknowledged that “the Board would rely on and import the construction from those IPRs, . . . 2024-407 and ’573 for the sake of consistent office determination.” Id. at 20:9–11. That is, Patent Owner agreed that the Board should use the prior constructions for the same claim terms at issue in this proceeding. Id. at 26:12–16 (“JUDGE MCKONE: -- it sounds like everybody agrees, that we should use the prior claim constructions from the other proceedings . . . Do you agree? MR. HECHT: -- if the Board agrees, absolutely.”). Petitioner also agreed that the Board should use the prior constructions. See id. at 31:23–32:3 (“JUDGE MCKONE: And so I assume you want us to use the same claim construction in this case as the previous case[s]; is that correct? MR WOO: That is correct, Your Honor.”). We agree with the parties that, for the sake of consistency, we apply our claim constructions from the previous proceedings. Tr. 20:22–25. As set forth in the previous related proceedings, we determined that the claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See IPR2024-00405, Paper 24 at 8–25; IPR2024-00407, Paper 25 at 8–26; IPR2024-00573, Paper 27 at 8–29. Thus, for consistency, and for the reasons given in the previous related proceedings, in this proceeding, we also determine that the claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, as discussed below.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Dua and Giobbi ’157 (Pet. 31), citing Dr. Wolfe’s supporting testimony (Ex. 1003). In particular, Petitioner posits that POSITA would have been motivated and found it obvious to “securely store the financial information in its tamper-resistant tag ‘to prevent hackers from retrieving confidential information’” (Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105, 109)), as disclosed by Giobbi ’157. As Petitioner points out, Giobbi ’157 teaches “credit/debit card information” that is stored in a “profile memory field 232” in the “physical access secured and tamperproof” memory (id.; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 36, 42, 63), and we find persuasive Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have reasonably expected to succeed in “storing the ‘credit card profile or other payment information’ in Dua’s tamper resistant tag memory,” wherein such combination “would have been no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 158).” slip op. at 40
- Skill levelOther
“Principles of Law B. A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-obviousness.9 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,679,289 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,289 - Google LLC / Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00783 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the listed combinations of Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer, and Nishikawa.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“Challenged Claims. . . use the word ‘means,’” similar to the challenged claims in the previous related proceedings. Pet. Reply 3; see also IPR2024- 00405, Ex. 1001, 22:43–60; IPR2024-00407, Ex. 1001, 22:36–49; IPR2024- 00573, Ex. 1001, 21:51–65. As the Federal Circuit stated, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Based on the record before us, this presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6 is not overcome.” slip op. at 18
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner
“construction for “enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service,” as recited in claim 1. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2002, 26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabling,” as we determined in the Decision to Institute, this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Dec. Inst. 9. As we explained, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Id. Thus, as we previously explained, by determining that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, the District Court did not construe the term “enabling.” Id.; see also Ex. 2002, 26. Accordingly, nothing in the Memorandum provides a construction of “enabling” as Patent Owner contends. Id. Thus, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that “nowhere does Dua teach or describe . . . providing an access key in exchange for information held locally in the PDK’s service blocks.” PO Resp. 33. That is, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction that an application, function or service is “enabled” by a PDK “when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key.” Id. at 32.” slip op. at 39
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing, as they rely on Patent Owner’s arguments that “the specification defines ‘local, secured information’ as information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK” (PO Resp. 30), with which, as discussed above, we do not agree. Dua discloses an “RFID Tag-Reader Module” which includes “Tag Memory 322” that may be tamper resistant. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 105, 109. Thus, we find persuasive Petitioner’s reliance on Dua’s Tag Memory 322, which locally stores information in a tamper-resistant manner, for teaching an integrated, secure memory for storing information locally, wherein the information is secured. Id. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that the proposed combination of Dua and Giobbi ’157 teaches “an integrated, secure memory storing local, secured information,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Dua and Giobbi ’157 (Pet. 31), citing Dr. Wolfe’s supporting testimony (Ex. 1003). In particular, Petitioner posits that POSITA would have been motivated and found it obvious to “securely store the financial information in its tamper-resistant tag ‘to prevent hackers from retrieving confidential information’” (Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105, 109)), as disclosed by Giobbi ’157. As Petitioner points out, Giobbi ’157 teaches “credit/debit card information” that is stored in a “profile memory field 232” in the “physical access secured and tamperproof” memory (id.; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 36, 42, 63), and we find persuasive Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have reasonably expected to succeed in “storing the ‘credit card profile or other payment information’ in Dua’s tamper resistant tag memory,” wherein such combination “would have been no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 158). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s positions on combining the teachings of Dua and Giobbi ’157 and thus Petitioner’s positions stand unopposed as a part of this trial. We have reviewed Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence regarding Petitioner’s proffered reasoning to combine the references, and we agree with and adopt them as our own. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Dua and Giobbi ’157 as proffered in the Petition.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 9,679,289 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,289 - PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd. v. Flip Phone Games Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00133 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Sturman and Ho; the Board found the Ho/Jiau/Choi grounds, with and without Ellis, insufficient.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We see very little difference between the parties’ respective proposals. We adopt Patent Owner’s marginally more specific proposal as it better reflects the ’089 patent. Additionally, because we would reach the same conclusions under Petitioner’s proposal, we agree with Patent Owner that this does not affect our analysis.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Consistent with Phillips, we begin with the “ordinary and customary meaning” of the words of the claims. Phillips, 415. F.3d at 1312–13 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The parties agree that the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase “background object” is consistent with the dictionary definition and means an object that is “not in the foreground.” Tr. 8:10–16; PO Resp. 8–9; Ex. 2008 (AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 2006); see also Ex. 2009 (“the scenery or ground behind something,” “the part of a painting representing what lies behind objects in the foreground”) (MERRIAM- WEBSTER DICTIONARY 2007); Ex. 2010 (“the part of a picture or pattern that is behind the main people or things in it” (MACMILLIAN ENGLISH DICTIONARY 2007); Ex. 2011 (“the ground or parts, as of a scene, situated in the rear (opposed to foreground)”) (RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY 2005). Having determined the ordinary and customary meaning, we need only look to see if there is some reason—such as the applicant acting as a lexicographer or the ordinary and customary meaning being improperly subjective—why the ordinary and customary meaning is not controlling.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We do not find that the prosecution history demonstrates that the applicant acted as a lexicographer by “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,” or “clearly express[ing] an intent to define the term” as required by Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. Instead, the language in the prosecution history is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning. That is, the applicant focuses on the location of the object relative to the area of game play, i.e., the foreground. For example, the applicant distinguishes Chu’s object as not being “background objects” because they “are featured in the forefront of [the] game play as primary objects to be manipulated or used during game play (see Chu at ¶¶ [0063]–[0065]).” Ex. 1002, 85 (emphasis added).12 The applicant continued by arguing that Chu’s objects “exist in the background, outside of the primary focus of game play and as unexpectedly interactive components, and are not themselves needed or required in order to play the game.” Id. If anything, this demonstrates an intent of the applicant to use the customary and ordinary meaning—not in the foreground—and not act as a lexicographer.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument. Under our rules, “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). We have reviewed Dr. Zagal’s testimony on this subject (see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 156–160, 163, 166, 172, 177–178) and find that it complies with our requirements. Specifically, Dr. Zagal provides his opinion and identifies specific evidence in the record that supports it. We do not find MarkForged, a nonprecedential decision, persuasive. Although MarkForged cites 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) as support for the proposition that expert testimony “is entitled to little to no weight [if] it merely parrots the Petition,” the rule is silent on that point. Patent Owner has not directed us to any rule or precedential decision that says that non- 17 The decision was affirmed by the Director. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022). conclusory testimony which cites underlying factual support, such as Dr. Zagal gives in this proceeding, is entitled to no weight.” slip op. at 49
Patent outcomesUS 8,688,089 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,688,089 - Exotec Product France SAS / Exotec North America Inc. et al. v. Opex CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00850 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–12, 14, and 23–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Raizer and Hangzhou.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes an express construction” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In this case, we must determine whether one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Hangzhou’s disclosure of driving its auto-guided trolleys 200 under shelves 100 would improve the operation of Raizer’s system in the same way. For us to resolve this question in Petitioner’s favor, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). However, bodily incorporation, i.e., “an actual physical substitution of” Hangzhou’s auto-guided trolleys or operating software into Raizer’s system, is not required. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,472,632 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,472,632 - 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 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00846 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–13, 15, 16, 18–24, and 26–29 as obvious over Burger; claims 3, 14, and 17 over Burger and Robinson; claims 6 and 25 over Burger and …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“For the same reasons, and based on the same evidence, given in the ’233 FWD, we maintain our construction of “a third party that operates a trusted authority,” namely, “a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction,” and make clear that such a transaction is not limited to those in which the principal parties are the user being allowed access and the application being accessed. Based on the complete record, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms. 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 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner contends that “it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to incorporate the age verification method of Robinson in Burger so that Burger’s system can be used by businesses interested in conducting transactions that require age-verification.” Pet. 93. Petitioner argues that it would have been predictable to include Robinson’s age-verification feature in Burger’s system in light of Robinson’s explanation that merchants and their employees face penalties if they sell age-restricted goods (e.g., alcohol or tobacco) to underage individuals. Id. at 94–95 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–80). Dr. Traynor testifies that there would have been “a reasonable expectation of success because it merely involves combining known elements in a manner that would have been easily implemented and obvious to” a skilled artisan. Ex. 1003 ¶ 80. We credit Dr. Traynor’s uncontroverted testimony and find that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine the teachings of Burger and Robinson. As to claims 3, 14, and 17, Robinson describes a user registering a biometric sample, identity-verifying information (SID), and age-verifying information with a database of an age-verification system. Pet. 95–96 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15, 28, 43, 48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–178). We find that a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Burger and Robinson, such that Robinson’s age-verifying information would have been stored in the database of Burger’s network server 114. Id. at 95 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 176). Patent Owner does not provide separate arguments for claims 3, 14, and 17. PO Resp. 22. limitations of claims 3, 14, and 17, and that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, for combining Burger and Robinson. The record does not contain evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. Upon consideration of all the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3, 14, and 17 would have been obvious over Burger and Robinson.” slip op. at 36
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find that, after Burger’s network server 114 authenticates a user’s pocket vault ID, the user is granted access to pocket vault 102 and can select a transaction from a displayed menu, including use of a credit card. subsequent access to that credit card information, either by displaying it or through token 102a, is because network server 114 sent a communication to pocket vault 102 indicating that it successfully authenticated the pocket vault. Ex. 1003 ¶ 115. This is the obvious inference a skilled artisan would have drawn from Burger’s description of authenticating the pocket vault and subsequently allowing credit card information to be used. Thus, we find that, in this example, the operator of network server 114 is a third party that operates a trusted authority, the principle parties to the transaction are the user of pocket vault 102 and the retailer, and a message from network server 114 to pocket vault 102 allowing the credit card to be used (displayed or encoded in the token) is an access message allowing the user access to the application (file with credit card information). Accordingly, we find that this example of Burger teaches claim limitations 1.4 and 1.5.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,886,954 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,886,954 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00653 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was 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) (2024). 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 patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’504 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 72); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1002 ¶ 47. As reflected above, Dr. Wooley’s testimony as to element [1.2] does not even assert that Cardamone discloses a tank, let alone one or more sensors disposed at a tank as recited in element [1.2]. Thus, Dr. Wooley’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s argument on this issue.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,726,504 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00652 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“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) (2024). 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 patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’403 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 73); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses element [1.2] because the evidence cited does not disclose a “first computer system being configured to provide remote control of the first pump or first valve” (i.e., a fluid-handling device). Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but Petitioner has not identified any disclosure of the capability to remotely control fluid-handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, Kahn’s disclosures that Petitioner relies on for allegedly teaching remote control are deficient. We discuss each. First, Petitioner points to the following, “[f]or instance, as illustrated in FIG. 1C, a fluid control device such as a valve 15A is located on the input side of a sen[s]or unit 110.” Ex. 1005, 8:19–21, cited in Pet. 13. This portion of Kahn, however, does not disclose remote control. Second, Petitioner cites to the following: Finally, or in addition to, the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:62–67). We agree with Patent Owner that this portion of Kahn teaches on-site alerts and local control of the fluid-handling device. See Prelim. Resp. 7. This portion of Kahn does not disclose remote control.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,294,403 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00651 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9–20 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“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) (2024). 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 patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“target value” is part of a command that is sent from a computing device to a server and then to a controller. The controller then receives a measurement of the fluid by a sensor and determines whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” If the measurement does not satisfy the “target value,” further operations are undertaken. The recited operation sequence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” is not as Dr. Wooley opines because the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time is represented by the measurement taken by the sensor, 11 Some claim language less relevant to construing “target value” was omitted for ease of reference. which the controller then uses to determine whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” Additionally, claim 1 recites that the “target value” is sent as part of a command to the controller. The “target value” is not sent to the controller from the sensor, as might be expected if the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” were as Dr. Wooley opines. Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s construction would also result in “target value” meaning effectively the same thing as the measurement of the fluid by the sensor, a concept that is separately recited in claim 1 and to which the “target value” is compared. The Specification of the ’680 patent does not support Petitioner’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value.” Although the Specification does not recite “target value,” it recites “target state,” and describes “target state” sufficiently to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “target” as used in “target value” and “target state.” In particular, the ’680 patent explains that “[i]n some embodiments, the process 104 includes receiving, via a network interface, from a remote user device, (e.g., via a command-center server) a command to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state.” Ex. 1001, 11:48–51. This portion reflects that the command is seeking to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state. In other words, the “target value” or “target state” is not generally “the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time”; rather, it is a value or state that the fluid-handling device is desired to be in, as Patent Owner and Dr. Durham explain. Additionally, just as claim 1 recites a directional component for the “target value” to be sent to the controller in a command, so too does the Specification describe a “target state” as being sent in a command from a remote user device. Thus, the Specification clearly supports the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Patent Owner and Dr. Durham and not the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Wooley. slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“time-stamped process data, report exception therein to the remote host, and extract and transmit time-stamped process data to the remote host.” Ex. 1005, Abst. (emphases added). Almadi explains that its remote field systems must include a plurality of controller units “to issue commands to, and gather and process data from a plurality of field devices, including remote systems and instruments, . . . [and] a database server for the storage of process data retrieved from the remote subsystems and instruments.” Id. at 2:22–30 (emphases added). Based on these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established that Almadi discloses element [1.4]. Specifically, the teachings from Almadi identified by Petitioner refer to process data, which is data retrieved from the remote subsystems/field devices. Thus, we understand that Almadi’s teaching—of using an Ethernet switch to transmit “process data”—describes transmitting data from the remote subsystems/field devices. See Ex. 1005, 3:13–17, cited in Pet. 15. But claim 1 and particularly element [1.4], recites “sending, with the server, the target value to the network address [which identifies a controller of the fluid-handling device13] via the network,” which is different than sending process data from the field devices to the remote host or database server for storage.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,175,680
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.