- PTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00762 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5 and 8–12 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Koskinen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 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). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review on all of the challenged claims based on all of the grounds identified in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and at least two years of practical experience with design or development of telecommunication and/or wireless communications systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner further argues that “[a]dditional education” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.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
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known and been familiar with information elements (IEs) that specified an RLC reordering timer value based on (1) general knowledge that IEs carried information in RRC messages and (2) that 3GPP TSs describe an IE carrying recording timer duration information for the RLC layer. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 151; Ex. 1014, 219–20. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art “that the PDCP timer information, which used similar variables as its RLC counterpart (Koskinen, ¶¶37-38), would also be carried in a PDCP configuration IE.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 151.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,863,573 - Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC v. Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00736 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Garfinkle and Kosten; claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious over Garfinkle, Kosten, and Allen.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedPetitioner expert discountedGranted
“Our reviewing court has held that if a declarant fails to qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art, then that person’s testimony regarding the knowledge or motivations of one of ordinary skill in the art is irrelevant as a matter of law. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.”). Mr. Daniels’ declaration consists of an analysis of the cited prior art in comparison to the challenged claims and a discussion of whether there would have been a 2 The motion does not seek to exclude the declaration of the named inventor of the ’725 patent, Nick Stiliadis. See Ex. 2109 (Stiliadis Declaration). motivation to combine the prior art. Ex. 2121 ¶¶ 4–20. Mr. Tulchin’s declaration addresses claim construction issues. Ex. 2131 ¶¶ 5–35. Each declarant, therefore, addresses issues that must be considered from the vantage point of a POSITA at the time of the invention, meaning a person with the level of ordinary skill defined in Section II.E.1 above. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (claim construction); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (obviousness). If Mr. Daniels and Mr. Tulchin do not qualify as POSITAs, as Petitioner alleges, then their opinion testimony is inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 (Testimony by Expert Witnesses). We find that there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that Mr. Daniels qualifies as a POSITA in relation to the ’725 patent. Mr. Daniels has an undergraduate degree in engineering physics in addition to a law degree. Ex. 2121 ¶ 2. His declaration, however, does not establish that he also has “one year of experience related to marketing and distribution of multimedia material over a computer network, or the equivalent.” See Section II.E.1 above. Mr. Daniels characterizes his non-legal work experience as follows: The rest of my professional career has been spent working in my own companies in the research, development and prototyping/commercialization of a number of different technologies, principally including fishing rod technology, digital video file transport, storage and processing, LED-based light-emitting tapes, drone control systems, wearable medical related electronic devices and breath-based diagnostic devices. Ex. 2121 ¶ 3; see also Ex. 1023, 99 (Daniels Deposition) (describing work on “a suite of interactive television innovations,” including “the first working pause button”). None of the projects identified appears to relate to “marketing and distribution of multimedia material over a computer network.” Patent Owner argues that Mr. Daniels “was involved (at the time of the filing of the application which matured into the ’725 patent) in making inventions, that dealt with interactive television, video pause buttons and video file provision over the Internet.” Sur-Reply Br. 6. However, neither Mr. Daniels’ declaration nor his deposition testimony assert that he ever worked on “video file provision over the Internet,” let alone that he did so for one year or more. See Ex. 2121 ¶ 3; Ex. 1023, 98–100. We find that the evidence in the record is not sufficient for us to conclude that Mr. Daniels qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art. We further find a lack of evidence establishing that Mr. Tulchin qualifies” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the following definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art: “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field plus one year of experience related to marketing and distribution of multimedia material over a computer network, or the equivalent.” Dec. 9. Patent Owner’s proposed definition differs from the Board’s only in that it adds a Bachelor of Science in engineering physics to the list of degrees that one of ordinary skill in the art might possess. See id. We view engineering physics as being related to the fields of electrical engineering, computer engineering, and computer science. Accordingly, following a review of the full record, we view Patent Owner’s proposed definition in its Response as consistent with the ’725 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaning
“When interpreting the meaning of a claim, “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Patent Owner has, briefly, proposed six claim terms for construction: exhibition; exhibitor; broadcast exhibitor; distribution; marketing; and storing. PO Resp. 10. The Petition states that “[t]o resolve the grounds presented herein, Petitioner does not believe that any term requires explicit construction.” Pet. 12. We see no reason why “exhibition” and “exhibitor” should be understood as having a meaning as narrow as Patent Owner proposes. “Exhibition” and “exhibitor” encompass more than just a showing by “one in the exhibition business” because the specification of the ’725 patent identifies certain “exhibitors” that are not “in the exhibition business”: e.g., a high school, libraries, and other non-profit organizations. Ex. 1001, 12:38–41 (“schools, libraries, and other non-profit organizations”), Fig. 1 (“high school”). The plain and ordinary meaning of “exhibitors” is at least broad enough to encompass the types of exhibitors identified in the specification: movie theaters, television stations, satellite television operators, cable television operators, and non-profit organizations such as high schools. Ex. 1001, 4:20–22, Fig. 1. We further determine that some of these exhibitor types, including at least satellite and cable television operators, are “broadcast exhibitors.” Moreover, we find that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “distribution” is not so narrow as to be limited to “the business of marketing films and providing copies to venues,” as Patent Owner proposes. See PO Resp. 10 (emphasis added). The claimed invention is a “method of marketing and distributing multimedia,” which is not limited to films. We agree with Petitioner that the term is at least broad enough to encompass distribution of any type of multimedia to any type of exhibitor contemplated in the specification. See Ex. 1001, 1:20–25 (multimedia types); Reply Br. 6. Similarly, the plain and ordinary meanings of “marketing” and “storing” are not limited to Patent Owner’s specific examples: interesting individuals in seeing a film and saving to non-volatile storage, respectively. See PO Resp. 10; Tr. at 57:3–7. The invention is directed to marketing and distributing multimedia, not just films, Ex. 1001, 16:21, and while the Specification refers to storing multimedia on “hard drives,” id. at 4:35–37, 4:44–52, there is nothing in the Specification, claims, or prosecution history that would limit storage only to hard drives or other non-volatile storage. The intrinsic evidence suggests that the proper construction of each” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Garfinkle’s video distribution system to implement Kosten’s distribution method to achieve the improvements described therein, such as: access to a large number of video products and advertising materials available at a centralized location (Ex-1007, 54; Ex-1005, 1:42–49, 1:54–2:12), improved advertising capabilities (Ex-1007, 54; Ex-1005, 1:42–49, 1:54–2:12), and improved distribution processes resulting in lower shipping and handling costs and labor intensity, improved security against piracy, wider and more flexible distribution capabilities, cost reductions for movie theaters, increased control over time and locations of exhibitions by studios and distributors, an ability to scale up or down distribution based on success in theaters, and an ability to track and monitor sales and marketing data (Ex-1007, 52, 54). Pet. 14 (citing Dystar Textilfarben v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (A motivation to combine exists when the “improvement” results in a product or process that is “stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.”)). Petitioner further asserts that such a person would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the objective of efficient content distribution through the proposed combination of Garfinkle and Kosten with no change in their respective functions because: (1) both are “from the same field and address the same well-known issues”; and (2) both references purport to achieve this objective in similar and predictable ways, “such as using the well-known teachings of digitizing content, correlating multimedia and associated advertising materials, and connecting multiple user sites to the central station through a public communications system.” Id. at 13, 16–17 (internal citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1005, 2:58–3:5, 3:32–49, 4:37–39; Ex. 1007, 54); Ex. 1002 ¶ 68. Patent Owner contends that there would have been no motivation to combine Kosten and Garfinkle because each represents a “complete solution[] to different file transport modes, Kosten involving simple file transmission to a theater and billboards, and Garfinkle involving file transmission to a [video-on-demand] user. Neither has a problem which is addressed by the other.” PO Resp. 33. Petitioner argues, however, and we agree, that “(1) a known technique can provide motivation to combine and (2) a known technique does not need to improve upon the primary reference—it just must be a ‘suitable option.’” Reply Br. 21 (citing Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). Thus, it does not matter that Kosten and Garfinkle each represent a complete and functional solution to digitally transporting media files. If the references in the combination address a known problem, such as issues with multimedia distribution, see Pet. 13–14, and the proposed combination is a suitable solution, then there would have been a motivation to combine the two references. Moreover, Petitioner persuasively argues that by combining Kosten and Garfinkle, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to achieve benefits such as lower shipping and handling costs, improved security against piracy, wider and more flexible distribution capabilities, an ability to more easily scale distribution up or down as needed, among other benefits. Pet. 14. We find that these benefits would have provided a sufficient motivation to combine Garfinkle’s technical implementation of a distribution process for large multimedia files with Kosten’s proposed business application, “beaming” films directly to theaters via satellite. Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are without merit.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,574,725 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,574,725 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00561 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 6 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Wainner and Bocci; the Board did not reach the Kamite and Bocci ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention of the ’775 patent would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and three years of work experience in computer networking or a related field,” wherein “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 48–50). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. See PO Resp. 18. We apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA at the time of the claimed invention because, based on the record, this proposal is consistent with the ’775 patent, the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Bhattacharjee.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We find Patent Owner’s argument that a link is a physical connection (PO Resp. 19; PO Sur-reply 2) unavailing. In particular, claims 1 and 6 do not recite any requirement that a “link” is “physical.” Further, as Petitioner points out, there is no support in the ’775 patent for “defining ‘link’ as only a physical connection,” and Patent Owner does not point to any disclosure in the ’775 patent for such support. Pet. Reply 5. Although we agree with Patent Owner that a link can connect the interfaces of routers wherein routers are “physical devices” (PO Sur-reply 2), claims 1 and 6 do not require that the link physically connects the routers. That is, the claims merely require a pseudo-wire to comprise a link set up between routers to connect the routers. We agree with Petitioner that pseudo-wires comprising the connection links “can connect to any interface, ‘whether it is a physical, logical, or virtual interface.’” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1043, 10; Ex. 1010, 3; Ex. 1042 ¶ 7). In fact, during oral argument, Patent Owner acknowledges that “[a] link, . . . , is not limited to a physical connection.” See Tr. 30:6–7.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that a pseudo-wire (“a type of emulated connection”) cannot be the same as a link (“a type of physical connection between router interface”). PO Resp. 20. In particular, claim 1 does not recite any requirement that a link be a physical connection, and thus, does not require that a link differs from the emulated connection of a pseudo-wire. As discussed above, during oral argument, Patent Owner acknowledges that a link is not limited to a physical connection. See Tr. 30:6–7. The ’775 patent itself provides no definition for “pseudo-wire” to support Patent’s Owner’s construction, and Patent Owner does not point to any disclosure in the ’775 patent for such support. As Petitioner points out, the ’775 patent instead supports a construction of “pseudo-wire” as comprising multiple links, wherein “[t]he first and second links constitute a first pseudo-wire pw1” and the second “pseudo-wire ps2 consists of the first link L1 and a second link L3.” Pet. Reply 7 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 6:29–43). We find availing Petitioner’s argument that, even if links were “physical connections” as Patent Owner asserts, “then the pseudo-wire consists of . . . two physical connections,” no different from a link, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion. Id. (citing Ex. 1042 ¶ 10). Although Patent Owner argues that the POSITA has always considered a pseudo-wire as a point-to-point link set up between input and output routers (PO Resp. 5–6), claims 1 and 6 do not recite that a pseudo-wire comprises a point-to-point link set up, and there is no support in the ’775 patent for specifically defining “pseudo-wire” as and limiting the term to a point-to-point link set up.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Bhattacharjee testified in support of Petitioner’s position that “[a] POSITA would have understood that the ordinary meaning of ‘link,’ . . . includes both physical and virtual connections, particularly in the context of pseudo-wires.” Ex. 1042 ¶ 7. We find availing Dr. Bhattacharjee’s testimony, which is supported by evidence. See id. (citing Ex. 1043, 10; Ex. 1010, 3 (disclosing that pseudo-wires encapsulate “data arriving at the PE-bound port (logical or physical)”), 4 (disclosing that the attachment circuit over which the pseudo-wire is established can be a “physical or virtual circuit”)). For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that a “link” is not required to be a physical connection. Instead, we determine that a “link” connects the interfaces of first and second routers, whether they are physical, logical, or virtual interfaces.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 8,130,775 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,130,775 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00485 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Li and Wu; the Board did not reach the instituted Li and Li-2 or Li-only grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and three years of work experience in computer networking, including experience with the IPv4 and IPv6 protocols, or a related field.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. PO Resp. 19–20. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As we determined in the Institution Decision (Dec. on Inst. 6), we continue to adopt the constructions of the terms previously construed by the district court. With respect to the claim term “domain,” we agree with Petitioner that the ’844 Patent defines “domain” as “[a] telecommunications network administered by an operator.” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:30–31). We further agree that the ’844 Patent does not require the IPv4 and IPv6 domains to each be controlled by distinct entities. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 91.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing. First, the evidence of record indicates that Li and Wu are analogous art. Pet. 70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 213– 214. For example, the ’844 Patent, Li, and Wu are all directed to the same field of endeavor, namely, computer networking and routing data packets. Ex. 1001, 1:17–21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 213; Ex. 1037, 1; Ex. 1039, 9. Second, the evidence of record indicates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the cited teachings of Li and Wu. Pet. 69; Ex. 1003 ¶ 210. As discussed above, Petitioner relies on Wu’s teaching that an IPv6 destination address includes a destination port number. Pet. 68–69; Ex. 1003 ¶ 207. Even if Patent Owner is correct that Li and Wu address the interoperability of IPv4 and IPv6 networks from different perspectives, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that Wu’s destination port number could be incorporated into the unused padding in Li’s IPv6 destination address. Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 210–211.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing. First, the evidence of record indicates that Li and Wu are analogous art. Pet. 70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 213– 214. For example, the ’844 Patent, Li, and Wu are all directed to the same field of endeavor, namely, computer networking and routing data packets. Ex. 1001, 1:17–21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 213; Ex. 1037, 1; Ex. 1039, 9. Second, the evidence of record indicates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the cited teachings of Li and Wu. Pet. 69; Ex. 1003 ¶ 210. As discussed above, Petitioner relies on Wu’s teaching that an IPv6 destination address includes a destination port number. Pet. 68–69; Ex. 1003 ¶ 207. Even if Patent Owner is correct that Li and Wu address the interoperability of IPv4 and IPv6 networks from different perspectives, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that Wu’s destination port number could be incorporated into the unused padding in Li’s IPv6 destination address. Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 210–211.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 8,451,844 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,451,844 - Abbott Laboratories / Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Altivera LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00425 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy; the Board did not reach the alternative Bandy grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. See generally PO Resp. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’307 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8–9.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“both the unique sensor ID as well as the associated unique wireless device ID is contradicted, or at least unsupported, by the claim language and the Specification. We determine that this limitation does not require authentication of both the unique sensor ID and the unique wireless device ID, or otherwise require authentication using the unique wireless ID. Rather, the limitation only requires authentication of the unique sensor ID. The language and structure of the claim itself, “the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID associated with said unique wireless device ID,” requires authentication of the unique sensor ID but not the unique wireless device ID. See Ex. 1001, 19:51–52 (emphasis added). The portion of the limitation reciting “associated with said unique wireless device ID” is linguistically an appositive modifying the “unique sensor ID.” Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges the “plain meaning of the claim term is that the remote server authenticates the unique sensor ID and that such unique sensor ID is associated with a unique wireless device ID.” PO Resp. 18.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed constructions of any of these other claim terms or phrases. PO Resp. 24. We agree with the parties that the identified limitations—which each recite a “means” or “means for” performing a particular function—are means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). And we agree with Petitioner’s uncontested identification of the recited functions and corresponding structure for these limitations for the reasons explained by Petitioner. See Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:20–21, 2:24–28, 3:33–36, 17:18–30); id. at 13–15 (citing Ex. 1009, 9:4–6, 9:19–20, 9:57–65, 10:10– 11) (explaining that Lovejoy is incorporated by reference into the ’307 Patent). We adopt the uncontested constructions identified by Petitioner, as” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the improvements offered by the incorporation of Heller’s teachings would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Beck and Heller in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Confirming Petitioner’s assertion that the combination yields improvements, Heller states that it improves the type of glucose monitor used in one of Beck’s embodiments. Beck states that its “medical device 130 includes a glucose meter” which “measure[s] blood glucose levels of blood applied to test strips.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 34. Specifically addressing such “conventional” test strip glucose monitoring, Heller states that its in vivo glucose sensor system addresses a need for continuous or automatic monitoring in a small, comfortable device. Ex. 1016, 2:1–7, 2:15–58, 3:19–25. As such, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Beck and Heller to improve Beck’s medical device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. We further agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate sensor implementation details described in Heller, e.g., an A/D converter and patient attachment systems, with Beck’s medical device. Pet. 44–45, 53, 55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 228, 234, 236–238, 259, 267, 278, which do no more than yield predictable results, e.g., converting signals or attaching a sensor to a patient. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401 (“[A] combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 7,969,307 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,969,307 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00329 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 12–15, 17, and 20–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Stone and Hoyos, with Varghese additionally applied to claims 7, 15, and 22.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of biometric authentication techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4. Petitioner also asserts that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard” for an ordinarily skilled artisan. Id. at 4–5. Dr. Jones’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–20. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan except for the language “at least” that qualifies the experience level and allows the experience level to encompass an expert’s level of skill. Inst. Dec. 21. We explained that except for the language “at least” that qualifies the experience level, “Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan comports with the technology and claims of the ’010 patent as well as the asserted references.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). In the Response, Patent Owner notes that for “the purposes of this” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“3. WHETHER STONE IS ANALOGOUS ART (a) General Principles “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). According to the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court’s KSR decision “directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly, stating that ‘familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis by the court) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402). In an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing that a reference is analogous art. See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The scope of analogous art includes references “from the same field of endeavor” and references “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). When evaluating the field of endeavor, a “factfinder must consider each reference’s disclosure in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances,’ and ‘weigh those circumstances from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.’” Airbus, 941 F.3d at 1380 (citations omitted) (quoting Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326); see id. at 1381. Hence, a field-of-endeavor analysis should consider a patent’s claims and written description. See id. at 1380–81.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“4. WHETHER AN ORDINARILY SKILLED ARTISAN WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE THE TEACHINGS OF THE REFERENCES WITH A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS (a) Petitioner’s Contentions (i) Motivation to Combine: The Proposed Combination To show the proposed combination, Petitioner provides the following annotated version of Stone’s Figure 2 combined with Stone’s Figure 3 together with additional steps according to Hoyos (Pet. 20): The above illustration includes Stone’s Figure 2 showing display 200 on an electronic device, Stone’s Figure 3 showing steps 300 through 318 for transferring funds to a recipient, and the following annotations in red: (1) a dashed line from the “$ Send money” button in Figure 2 to step 300 for “Select Currency for Display” in Figure 3; (2) a dashed line from name box 202 in Figure 2 to step 312 for “Enter Recipient Information” in Figure 3; (3) a dashed line from funding source box 206 in Figure 2 to step 314 for “Enter Funding Source” in Figure 3; (4) a dashed line from the “Send” button 214 in Figure 2 to step 316 for “Confirm?” in Figure 3; and (5) additional steps after a “Yes” determination in step 316 for “Confirm?” as follows: (i) “Capture biometric info”; (ii) “Perform fraud detection”; (iii) “Trans authenticated?”; and (iv) “Stop transaction.” Pet. 20; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 62; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 11–12, 16, 23–24, 29–35, Figs. 2–3.” slip op. at 42
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“5. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 (a) Preamble 1.0 Claim 1 recites “[a] system.” Ex. 1001, 13:56. Petitioner contends that Stone teaches claim 1’s preamble because Stone discloses “system 400 configured to utilize the currency display over a network 402.” Pet. 22 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 40). According to Petitioner, “Stone further describes that its system includes software ‘such as program code and/or data . . . stored on one or more computer readable mediums.’” Id. at 23 (alteration by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 54). Patent Owner makes no arguments specific to claim 1’s preamble. See, e.g., Resp. 14–34; Sur-reply 2–26. Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. Generally, a preamble does not limit a claim. Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We need not decide whether claim 1’s preamble limits the claim because, for the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Jones’s testimony, we agree with” slip op. at 62
Patent outcomesUS 9,972,010 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,972,010 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00331 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese; the Board did not reach the other asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of biometric authentication techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4. Petitioner also asserts that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard” for an ordinarily skilled artisan. Id. Dr. Jones’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–20. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan except for the language “at least” that qualifies the experience level and allows the experience level to encompass an expert’s level of skill. Inst. Dec. 21. We explained that except for the language “at least” that qualifies the experience level, “Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan comports with the technology and claims of the ’886 patent as well as the asserted references.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). In the Response, Patent Owner notes that for “the purposes of this” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artOther
“4. WHETHER STONE IS ANALOGOUS ART (a) General Principles “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). According to the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court’s KSR decision “directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly, stating that ‘familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis by the court) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402). In an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing that a reference is analogous art. See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The scope of analogous art includes references “from the same field of endeavor” and references “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). When evaluating the field of endeavor, a “factfinder must consider each reference’s disclosure in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances,’ and ‘weigh those circumstances from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.’” Airbus, 941 F.3d at 1380 (citations omitted) (quoting” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successOther
“5. WHETHER AN ORDINARILY SKILLED ARTISAN WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE THE TEACHINGS OF THE REFERENCES WITH A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS (a) Petitioner’s Contentions (i) Motivation to Combine: The Proposed Combination To show the proposed combination, Petitioner provides the following annotated version of Stone’s Figure 2 combined with Stone’s Figure 3 together with additional steps according to Hoyos and Varghese (Pet. 22): The above illustration includes Stone’s Figure 2 showing display 200 on an electronic device, Stone’s Figure 3 showing steps 300 through 318 for transferring funds to a recipient, and the following annotations in red: (1) a dashed line from the “$ Send money” button in Figure 2 to step 300 for “Select Currency for Display” in Figure 3; (2) a dashed line from name box 202 in Figure 2 to step 312 for “Enter Recipient Information” in Figure 3; (3) a dashed line from funds box 204 in Figure 2 to step 304 for “Enter Amount” in Figure 3; (4) a dashed line from funding source box 206 in Figure 2 to step 314 for “Enter Funding Source” in Figure 3; (5) a dashed line from the “Send” button 214 in Figure 2 to step 316 for “Confirm?” in Figure 3; and (6) additional steps after a “Yes” determination in step 316 for “Confirm?” as follows: (i) “Capture biometric info” followed by “Perform fraud detection”; (ii) “Capture location” followed by “Perform fraud detection”; (iii) “Trans authenticated?”; and (iv) “Stop transaction.” Pet. 22; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 11–12, 16, 23–24, 29–35, Figs. 2–3.” slip op. at 46
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“6. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 (a) Preamble 1.0 Claim 1 recites “[a] system.” Ex. 1001, 14:2. Petitioner contends that Stone teaches claim 1’s preamble because Stone discloses system 400 “configured to utilize the currency display over a network 402.” Pet. 23 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 40); see id. at 70. According to Petitioner, system 400 includes “at least a user device 404,” one or more recipient devices 406, and “at least one payment provider server 408” communicating “over the network 402.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 40). Patent Owner makes no arguments specific to claim 1’s preamble. See, e.g., Resp. 14–36; Sur-reply 2–22. Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. Generally, a preamble does not limit a claim. Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We need not decide whether claim 1’s preamble limits the claim because, for the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Jones’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner that Stone teaches claim 1’s preamble. See Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–88. (b)” slip op. at 76
Patent outcomesUS 11,526,886 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,526,886 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00330 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: claims 1, 4–10, and 13–19 over Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese; claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 over Stone, Varghese, and Borovsky.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“all the evidence in the record, for the foregoing reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Stone and Hoyos. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–69; Ex. 1056 ¶¶ 15–16.” slip op. at 33
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that “a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (‘POSITA’) at the time of the claimed invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of biometric authentication techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Petitioner further states that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for POSITA.” Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner has applied Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. We apply Petitioner’s undisputed level of skill in the art with the exception of the phrase “at least” which injects potential ambiguity into the level of skill, because Petitioner’s proposed level of skill appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’656 patent and the prior art. C. Claim Construction We apply the same claim construction standard used by Article III” slip op. at 9
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“III. CONCLUSION14 Weighing the competing evidence and testimony, we determine that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Challenged Claims of the ’656 patent are unpatentable. In summary: 35 Claim(s) Claim(s) Reference(s)/ Claim(s) U.S.C. Shown Not Shown Basis § Unpatentable Unpatentable 1, 4–10, 103(a) Stone, Hoyos, 1, 4–10, 13– 13–19 Varghese 19” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 10,713,656 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,713,656 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00332 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 10–16, 20, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over Kesanupalli, Challener, and Cheng.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has applied Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 13. We apply Petitioner’s undisputed level of skill in the art with the exception of the phrase “at least” which injects potential ambiguity into the level of skill, because Petitioner’s proposed level of skill appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’512 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Upon review of the complete record before us, we determine that it is not necessary for us to expressly construe any claim term. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D. Ground 1: Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–6, 10–16, 20, and 21 over” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“For the following reasons, based on the evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner, we are persuaded that Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Kesanupalli and Challener with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–51, 83. First, Patent Owner’s reliance on what Mr. Ramesh Kesanupalli, the individual, allegedly chose not to include in the disclosure of the Kesanupalli patent reference is unavailing. The question of obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art not an actual person who may or may not have been a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ramesh Kesanupalli is one of five named co-inventors on Kesanupalli. Ex. 1006, code (75). 7 Patent Owner’s argument, in essence, is an improper request to limit the Kesanupalli reference to just the explicit problems addressed, solutions proposed, and goals achieved by the Kesanupalli reference. However, “[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)). We have reviewed all of the cases cited by Patent Owner regarding the determination of obviousness. None of them is at odds with the principle stated in Heck.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Summary of Claim 1 For all the foregoing reasons, Petitioner establishes a by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kesanupalli, Challener, and Cheng.” slip op. at 62
Patent outcomesUS 10,929,512 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,929,512 - Microsoft Corporation v. Interdigital Patent Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00306 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held all challenged claims of the ’933 and ’054 patents unpatentable as obvious over Ahya and McKillop, with ’933 claims 20, 21, 42, and 43 also relying on Aholainen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one to three devices that used common wireless communications protocols such as Bluetooth and 802.11/Wi-Fi. More education, e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D., would compensate for less work experience and vice versa. 305 Pet. 13–14; accord 306 Pet. 14. Patent Owner “has adopted Microsoft’s definition for this proceeding.” 305 PO Resp. 6; accord 306 PO Resp. 6. Neither party argues that a particular level of ordinary skill in the art makes a difference in the outcome of the issues presented in these proceedings. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find to be consistent with the record evidence, particularly because it specifies having one to three years of experience working with wireless devices that use Bluetooth and 802.11.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We conclude that for the purposes of this Decision, we need not determine whether the claim term “detecting” encompasses “soliciting” detectable responses from other devices, as Patent Owner proposes, Sur- Reply 3, or whether Petitioner is correct that “solicitation and detection are distinct acts, and thus using Bluetooth for solicitation is not using Bluetooth for detection.” Reply 5. As discussed in Section IV above, “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). Here, it is not necessary to construe the term “detecting” to determine that no presumption of nexus exists because, for the reasons discussed below, we find that AirDrop is not coextensive with the challenged claims under either party’s interpretation of the term.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“device uses significantly less power than if a high speed seek was used.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 43. However, once a connection between two devices is established, Petitioner persuasively argues that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to implement devices based on these teachings to switch from Bluetooth to Wi-Fi to transfer content, as taught by McKillop, because Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have reasonably expected to succeed in implementing these features because they would have required only minor software code that was well within the skill of a POSITA, as evidenced by these features’ ubiquity in the prior art.” Pet. 19–20; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–45 (ubiquity in the prior art), 72 (only “minor software code” required). Petitioner also persuasively argues that one of ordinary skill “would have been further motivated to implement the Ahya+McKillop wireless devices to prompt users to accept or deny incoming file transfers, as described by numerous background references[,]” and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 22; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46– 51 (background references), 78–81 (motivation), 83 (only “minor software code” required to implement combination). We find that on the full record Petitioner has sufficiently established that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to combine Ahya and McKillop. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Here, the evidence demonstrates that AirDrop includes significant unclaimed features that are likely to have been major contributors to any commercial success or industry praise that Apple’s AirDrop-equipped devices have enjoyed. This is true even if the analysis is limited to the AirDrop feature itself, rather than to the entire Apple device. See Sur- Reply 10–11 (“Patent Owner is not claiming the commercial success of the iPhone to show a presumptive nexus. “). Petitioner identifies three major features of AirDrop that are not part of the claimed invention: (1) device visibility controls implemented using iCloud services-based authentication; (2) security, including encryption; and (3) tight integration within the Apple ecosystem. Reply 8; Ex. 1086 ¶ 15. We find that the evidence of these features is sufficient to rebut Patent Owner’s claim that it is entitled to a presumption of nexus.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 9,173,054 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,173,054
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.