- Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco NVInstitutedPTAB · Oct 7, 2025 · IPR2025-00598 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–31 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Beel and Dinka and over van de Laar and Kaplan.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of the ’347 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that Dr. Almeroth does not provide a reason why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Beel and Dinka, and that, instead, he “summarily concludes that Skype’s status as ‘well-known’ somehow would have motivated the combination of Dinka with Beel.” Prelim. Resp. 15–16. We disagree. Dr. Almeroth testifies that Skype, as taught in Dinka, would have been an example of the type of application that would have run on Beel’s system and that applying Dinka’s teachings would have improved Beel’s similar system in the same manner as it improved Dinka’s, with predictable results. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103, 129. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976))). On the current record, including Dr. Almeroth’s testimony, Petitioner’s proposed reasons to combine the teachings of Beel and Dinka have rational underpinning.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive at least because Dinka expressly describes using VoIP technology on computer terminals 102. Ex. 1006, 5:45–48 (“A plurality of computer terminals 102 are shown coupled to the Internet 101, each comprising a network interface for communicating over the Internet.”), 6:7–8 (“Each computer terminal 102 is installed with a communication client application 110.”), 6:23–26 (“The communication client applications 110 [of computer terminals 102] and 113 [of television sets 103] are preferably peer-to-peer clients for setting-up and conducting VoIP calls according to peer-to-peer principles as discussed above.”). Thus, Dinka does not lead a skilled artisan in a direction divergent from the path taken in the ’347 patent. Moreover, “[a] reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, even though Dinka expresses a preference for conducting VoIP calls using a television set, a skilled artisan still would have considered Dinka’s teaching of using computers for such calls. See id. at 1334 (“This court has further explained that just because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.”). Patent Owner’s teaching-away argument is unpersuasive. slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyOther
“a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Beel and Dinka, and that, instead, he “summarily concludes that Skype’s status as ‘well-known’ somehow would have motivated the combination of Dinka with Beel.” Prelim. Resp. 15–16. We disagree. Dr. Almeroth testifies that Skype, as taught in Dinka, would have been an example of the type of application that would have run on Beel’s system and that applying Dinka’s teachings would have improved Beel’s similar system in the same manner as it improved Dinka’s, with predictable results. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103, 129. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976))). On the current record, including Dr. Almeroth’s testimony, Petitioner’s proposed reasons to combine the teachings of Beel and Dinka have rational underpinning.” slip op. at 21
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,966,347 - Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco NVInstitutedPTAB · Oct 7, 2025 · IPR2025-00597 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–22 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–22 would have been obvious over Beel and Dinka.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In sum, on the current record, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Beel and Dinka. f) Claims 2–22 The parties present their arguments for independent claim 11 along with those for claim 1. Pet. 44–45; Prelim. Resp. 19, 23. Claims 2–10 and 22 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims 12–21 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 11. Patent Owner does not present separate arguments for claim 11 or the dependent claims. We have analyzed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for claims 2–22 (Pet. 36–46) and, on the current record, conclude that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that claims 2–22 would have been obvious over Beel and Dinka.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Almeroth and alleged admissions by Patent Owner in litigation, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and five years of work experience in a related field” and that “[a]dditional educational experience could substitute for some of the work experience.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37). “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art at this time.” Prelim. Resp. 6. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is consistent with the technology described in the ’346 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther
“Patent Owner accepts the Petition’s claim construction for the purposes of” the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 5–6. In light of Patent Owner’s acceptance, and because the proposed constructions are, on this record, consistent with the evidence cited by Petitioner, we, too, accept Petitioner’s proposals for “providing simulations or translations, as required,” and “data transformations,” as recited in claim 1, for purposes of this Decision. Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions of any other claim 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 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that Dr. Almeroth does not provide a reason why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Beel and Dinka, and that, instead, he “summarily concludes that Skype’s status as ‘well-known’ somehow would have motivated the combination of Dinka with Beel.” Prelim. Resp. 16. We disagree. Dr. Almeroth testifies that Skype, as taught in Dinka, would have been an example of the type of application that would have run on Beel’s system and that applying Dinka’s teachings would have improved Beel’s similar system in the same manner as it improved Dinka’s, with predictable results. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 117, 132. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976))). On the current record, including Dr. Almeroth’s testimony, Petitioner’s proposed reasons to combine the teachings of Beel and Dinka have rational underpinning.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,966,346 - Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00562 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all three § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“whether to institute an inter partes review. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner
“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, and “enablement signal enabling one or more of an application, a function and a service.” Prelim. Resp. 1–6. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. (citing Ex. 2001, 25–26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” as we determined in the prior proceedings, 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 Ex. 2001, 26; see also IPR2024-00405, Paper 8 at 11–12; IPR2024-00407, Paper 8 at 12–13; IPR2024-00784, Paper 12 at 10–11. That is, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Thus, as we previously explained, by determining that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, the District Court did not construe the term “enabled.” Ex. 2001, 26. Accordingly, although the referenced portion of the District Court’s Memorandum indicates that a POSITA could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim (id.), nothing in the Memorandum provides a construction of “enabled” as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 5. That is, we are unpersuaded that the District Court construed that “‘[a]n application, function, or service is ‘enabled’ by a PDK when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key” or that “hybrid device” includes “an RDC that ‘enable[es] one or more of an application, a function, and a service’ when it forwards such a message to the application, function, or service.” Id. (emphasis omitted, alteration in original). Thus, as in the prior proceedings, we determine that “enabl[ing] one or more of an application a function, and a service” does not require receiving information from a PDK in exchange for an access key or forwarding a message to the application, function, or service.” Id.; see also IPR2024-00405, Paper 8 at 11–12; IPR2024-00407, Paper 8 at 12–13; IPR2024-00784, Paper 12 at 10–11.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and 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))). Petitioner proposes claim construction for “Personal Digital Key (PDK).” Pet. 8–9. Patent Owner does not take issue with Petitioner’s proposed construction for “PDK” but instead requests that we “follow the District Court’s 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, and “enablement signal enabling one or more of an application, a function and a service,” with respect to claim 10. Prelim. Resp. 1–2. Because the parties do not take issue with each other’s proposed claim constructions, there is no term of the challenged claims that is in controversy, and thus, we determine that no term requires explicit construction. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375. However, although it is not necessary to construe the term to resolve the disputed issues before us, we note that Patent Owner provides arguments with respect to “enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service” recited in claims 1 and 10. Prelim. Resp. 1–2. We addressed similar arguments with respect to these terms in previous proceedings with related patents (see IPR2024-00405, Paper 8 at 11–12; IPR2024-00407, Paper 8 at 12–13; IPR2024-00784, Paper 12 at 10–11), and we similarly address Patent Owner’s contention in this proceeding.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“have been motivated to integrate an RDC into Giobbi ’157’s hybrid device for communication with external PDKs based, in part on the teachings of Giobbi ’139.” Pet. 27. In particular, Petitioner contends that Giobbi ’139 “expressly teaches integrating an RDC into the same type of hybrid device disclosed in Giobbi ’157, a cell phone,” wherein “a ‘Personal Digital Key Digital Content Security System (PDK-DCSS) is used to protect computers from unauthorized use and protect the digital content stored on computers from being wrongfully accessed, copied, and/or distributed.’” Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract). According to Petitioner, “Giobbi ’139 teaches that RDCs should be incorporated into hybrid devices like cell phones because these devices ‘commonly included’ data storage,” wherein “Giobbi ’139 identified such a configuration as an ‘enhancement.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 87–88). Further, according to Petitioner, “Giobbi ’157 teaches that it is advantageous to incorporate PDKs into ‘commonly carried items,’ like phone, since it would eliminate the need for a user to carry a separate PDK device and would reduce the risk of loss.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 35; Ex. 1003 ¶ 48). In addition, Petitioner contends that “the Dua patent’s RFID system configuration also provides motivation to integrate and RDC into Giobbi ’157’s hybrid device.” Id. In particular, according to Petitioner, “Dua teaches a hybrid device—e.g., a cell phone—which establishes wireless connections with other devices to enable functions and exchange data.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 6:46–65).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,049,188 - PTAB · Oct 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00673 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would show at least one claim unpatentable over Shin and Aoyama.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating at least one of claims 1–7 of the ’675 patent is unpatentable. We begin our analysis with the principles of law that generally apply to an asserted ground based on obviousness, we then assess the level of skill in the art, next we provide brief overviews of Shin and Aoyama, and then we address the parties’ contentions with respect to independent claims 1, 6, and 7.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The “person having ordinary skill in the art” is a hypothetical construct, from whose vantage point obviousness is assessed. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Env’t Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or 4 At this stage in the proceeding, SoundClear does not present arguments or evidence of secondary considerations. See Prelim. Resp. more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. at 696–97. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Stern, Amazon argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and approximately two years of industry or academic experience in a field related to controlling the audio output of electronic devices. Work experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for work experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–32). In the Preliminary Response, SoundClear does not address Amazon’s assessment of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Amazon’s uncontested assessment of the level of skill in the art because (1) it is consistent with the ’675 patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Stern.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“arguments and evidence for purposes of institution that would support determining that a person of ordinary skill in the would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Shin and Aoyama. As one example, Amazon contends that the proposed combination is merely the addition of one known element (i.e., “Aoyama’s natural language processing and information retrieval”) to another known element (i.e., “Shin’s voice processing and response device”) to obtain predictable results (i.e., “identifying a user’s intent and providing information responsive to such intent”). Pet. 19–20 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Ex. 1002 ¶ 83). As another example, Amazon contends the proposed combination also represents the addition of one known element (i.e., “Aoyama’s word replacement” feature) to another known element (i.e., “Shin’s distance-based content abbreviation/simplification”) to obtain predictable results (i.e., “using word replacement to simply content for distant users”). Id. at 25–26 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Ex. 1002 ¶ 100). Amazon also presents sufficient arguments and evidence for purposes of institution that would support determining there is a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 84), 27–28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 102; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 97, 98 Fig. 7). To the extent SoundClear argues that Amazon is required to identify a problem a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to solve when combining the teachings of Shin and Aoyama, we do not agree. See Prelim. Resp. 31–32. This line of argument runs contrary to the principles of law articulated in KSR. In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “an expansive and flexible approach” to an obviousness evaluation. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415; see also Jazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“KSR did not impose a rigid requirement to identify . . . a problem to be solved in the art . . . .”). The Supreme Court stated that, “[o]ften, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents,” amongst other things, “to determine whether there was apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Moreover, the Supreme Court explained that, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the preliminary record, we discern no deficiency in Amazon’s characterizations of Shin, Aoyama, or the general background knowledge in the art. In addition, for purposes of institution, we are persuaded by Dr. Stern’s testimony concerning the relevant disclosures in Shin and Aoyama. At this stage of the proceeding, SoundClear argues that Shin does not teach limitations 1[b]—“a voice classifying unit configured 1[b][i] to calculate a distance between the user and the output-content control device by a proximity sensor 1[b][ii] to classify the voice into either a first voice or a second voice based on the calculated distance.” See Prelim. Resp. 19–22. a. Limitations 1[b]—“a voice classifying unit configured to 1[b][i] calculate a distance between the user and the output-content control device by a proximity sensor to 1[b][ii] classify the voice into either a first voice or a second voice based on the calculated distance” In the Preliminary Response, SoundClear contends that Shin fails to teach voice classification because “Shin is incapable of distinguishing [between] multiple voices.” Prelim. Resp. 21. More specifically, SoundClear argues that Shin cannot teach classifying a voice into a first voice or second voice because “Shin never refers to a ‘first user’ or ‘second user’ or ‘multiple users.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 generally); see also id. at 26– 27 (arguing that Amazon misstates the record because Shin never discloses a “first voice” nor a “second voice”). Instead, SoundClear asserts that Shin only contemplates a single user (i.e., user 10) when calculating the distance between the user and an electronic device (e.g., Shin’s electronic device 100). Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 38). Based on the preliminary record, Amazon presents sufficient evidence that would support a finding that Shin teaches “a voice classifying unit configured to calculate a distance between the user and the output-content control device by a proximity sensor to classify the voice into either a first voice or a second voice based on the calculated distance.” Pet. 10–14. Shin discloses that “processor 120 may determine an output scheme of corresponding content based on a distance between a user and the electronic device 101.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 53. Shin’s processor 120 accomplishes this distance calculation by using distance detection module 180, which may include various sensors, such as a proximity sensor. Id. ¶ 66; see also id. ¶ 153 (disclosing an embodiment where electronic device 901 includes sensor module 940, which, in turn, includes proximity sensor 940G). Shin’s Table 3 illustrates how the distance between the user and electronic device 101 determines the output scheme. Id. ¶ 86, Table 3. For instance, Shin’s Table 3 illustrates classifying the user’s voice input as a “first voice” when the distance between the user and electronic device 101 is between 1 to 2 meters, and classifying the user’s voice input as a “second voice” when the distance between the user and electronic device 101 is less than 1 meter. Id. ¶¶ 86, 87, Table 3.” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,244,675 - PTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · PGR2025-00025 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–19 and all asserted grounds, finding it more likely than not that claim 1 is anticipated by the Gatorade Label.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Post-grant review is available for patents that issue from applications that at one point contained at least one claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), §§ 3(n)(1), 6(f)(2)(A). After considering the briefing and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the ’422 Patent is eligible for post-grant review and has shown it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim of the ’422 Patent is unpatentable under § 324(a). Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’422 Patent.” slip op. at 2
- 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 “would possess at least (1) a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or a related field, with (2) five years of experience in material identification and characterization using multiple analytical methods and field sampling, or equivalent research or professional experience.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 24). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for one of ordinary skill in the art nor provide a proposed definition of its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“336. The applicant explained that not all combinations of shrink films and light blocking materials are recyclable. Id. at 335. The applicant explained that films can be compatible with PET recycling in two ways, (1) the film can float in water and be separated from PET that sinks in water or (2) the PET films crystallize and “can be recovered with the PET stream.” Id. at 336 (citing “A Resource Document by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR)”) (found at Ex. 1002, 323–332) (emphasis omitted). The applicant explained that “removing the label before or during the recycling process is not evidence of the recyclability of the label” and that “[r]emoving the label during the recycling process is not equivalent to actually recycling the label.” Id. at 335. As such, a POSITA reading the prosecution history would understand that a label is not recyclable with a PET container, as recited by the independent claims, by removing the label from the PET recycle stream before or during the recycling process.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“To determine how a person skill in the art would determine if a shrink label is “recyclable” as recited in the independent claims, we look to how the Specification of the ’422 Patent describes or defines recyclable shrink labels. For example, the ’422 Patent states that PET shrink films are generally considered recyclable if no inks are retained on the film after a caustic wash cycle typically used in PET reclaiming processes. Ex. 1001, 6:61–65. The ’422 Patent further states that labels are fully recyclable if the polymers used are clear, preferably clear PET, and the labels include inks that can be washed off in a “typical PET recycling wash (caustic wash).” Id. at 11:44– 49; see also id. at 11:49–54 (describing embodiments in which the labels are free or substantially free of inks that cannot be washed off in a caustic wash or where the labels are free or substantially free of color plastics that cannot be recycled). The ’422 Patent further discusses “industry standards” for determining whether various embodiments of shrink labels are recyclable. See, e.g., id. at 11:29–53. For example, the Specification states that the “Association for Plastic Recyclers (APR) Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures (PET-CG-02)” (Ex. 1005) can certify that a film is fully recyclable with a container or bottle. Id. at 11:34– 38. Additionally, the Specification states that labels “are recyclable according to the Evaluation of the Near Infrared (NIR) Sorting Potential of a Whole Plastic Article (SORT-B-01)” (Ex. 1010) and/or the “Evaluation of Sorting Potential for Plastic Articles Utilizing Metal, Metalized, or Metallic Printed Components (SORT-B-03)” (Ex. 1011). Ex. 1001, 11:39–44. The ’422 Patent further states that embodiments of the labels “are fully recyclable. For example, the labels may include inks that can be washed off in a typical PET recycling wash (caustic wash) and the polymers” are preferably clear PET. Id. at 11:44–48. The ’422 Patent thus provides various descriptions or standards to determine the recyclability of shrink labels. For the purposes of addressing the anticipation and obviousness grounds, we determine that any of these standards can be used to determine if a shrink label is “recyclable.” We note that our construction is preliminary and is based on the present record. We invite the parties to further the address the construction of “wherein the recyclable shrink label is recyclable with a PET container” during trial.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,961,422 - Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,203 - PTAB · Aug 27, 2025 · IPR2025-00565 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5 on all five grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Shin.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the 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.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Stern, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’337 patent “would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field,” and would have “approximately two years of industry or academic experience in a field related to controlling the audio output of electronic devices.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–34). Petitioner further asserts that “[w]ork experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for work experience.” Id.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article “a” or “an” in patent parlance carries the meaning of “one or more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” That “a” or “an” can mean “one or more” is best described as a rule, rather than merely as a presumption or even a convention. The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must “evince[ ] a clear intent” to limit “a” or “an” to “one.” The subsequent use of definite articles “the” or “said” in a claim to refer back to the same claim term does not change the general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular meaning. SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc., 695 F.3d 1348, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). These controlling case authorities are applicable here. At this stage, we preliminarily construe the scope of the claim 1[b] term “a user” as covering one or more users. Likewise, we preliminarily construe the scope of the 1[b] phrase “a voice spoken by a user” as covering one or more voices spoken by a single user, or by plural users.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Shin under Ground 2. Pet. 30–35. Petitioner contends that “[i]f [Patent Owner] argues that Shin fails to disclose any limitations [under anticipation Ground 1], such limitations would have been obvious over Shin [under obviousness Ground 2].” Pet. 30. Therefore, we refer to Petitioner’s individual mappings for claim 1 to Shin as set forth under anticipation Ground 1 as also being applicable to obviousness Ground 2, because “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.” Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We note that under Ground 2, no modifications are required to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, no showing of a motivation to modify Shin or a reasonable expectation of success is required. See Unification Techs. LLC v. Micron Tech Inc., 23-1348, 2024 WL 3738401, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024) (nonprecedential). We have also considered the Declaration by Dr. Stern, as cited by Petitioner in support of institution. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 107–116.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,069,337 - Adc Solutions Auto LLC v. The Noco CompanyAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00671 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 15, 17, 18, 51, 54, and 57 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Richardson, Zhao, Yu, Paparrizos, and Dao.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“claimed priority date of July 3, 2014, would have been a person with at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or its equivalent and at least two years of experience in the field of electrical engineering including some experience with DC power supply or battery charger design[;] . . . [l]ess work experience could be compensated for by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–44; Ex. 1014, 10–11). Patent Owner “does not propose a different level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 19. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’243 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’243 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“As neither party proposes an express construction for our consideration and because we determine that claim construction is not necessary to decide whether to institute, we do not expressly construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teachings of Richardson and Zhao to achieve the subject matter of claim 1. For example, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Richardson’s system to include the USB input circuit of Zhao “to avoid the need to supply a proprietary charger or other type of AC ‘power brick’ that would be less ubiquitous or less standardized,” increase flexibility and convenience, and cater to consumer demand for USB technology. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89). Petitioner further alleges that the addition of a USB input circuit would provide for an alternative where traditional charging methods are lost, damaged, or otherwise unavailable. Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 88). Thus, Petitioner has provided sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the teachings of the applied references. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1005 ¶ 28 (emphasis added). Dr. MacCarley testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known what external battery charger could have been used and where to place it in Richardson’s system. Ex. 1044 ¶ 13. In particular, Dr. MacCarley explains that there are numerous points in the circuitry disclosed by Richardson where a charging pathway from an external battery charger (e.g. the “battery charger” that Richardson explains is “not shown”, EX1005, ¶ [0028]) could be connected to charge Richardson’s batteries. EX2010, 52:3–54:5. Any of these connection points would be a trivial modification of Richardson’s embodiment. A PHOSITA would have understood how to implement this type of well-known configuration of an external battery charger and associated charging circuitry, which would have been as simple as wiring connections to the terminal anode and cathode of the batteries. The simplicity of this connection is why it is not surprising that Richardson describes such a pathway and leaves it “not shown” in the figures. Id. We credit the testimony of Dr. MacCarley in this regard. Moreover, Dr. Fayed confirms that it was known to recharge a jump starter with a barrel charger. Ex. 2014 ¶ 23.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 11,584,243 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,584,243 - Adc Solutions Auto LLC v. The Noco CompanyAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00577 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 32, 38, 39, 47, 52, and 54 are unpatentable as obvious over Richardson and Zhao and over Yu and Paparrizos.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the claimed priority date of July 3, 2014, would have been a person with at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or its equivalent and at least two years of experience in the field of electrical engineering including some experience with DC power supply or battery charger design[;] . . . [l]ess work experience could be compensated for by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–42; Ex. 1014, 10–11). Patent Owner “does not propose a different level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 19. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’023 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’023 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits there are no formal claim constructions necessary in this proceeding.” Pet. 23. Patent Owner “does not propose any terms need to be construed.” PO Resp. 18. As neither party proposes an express construction for our consideration and because we determine that claim construction is not necessary to decide whether to institute, we do not expressly construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teachings of Richardson and Zhao to achieve the subject matter of claim 1. For example, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Richardson’s system to include the USB input circuit of Zhao to avoid the need to supply a proprietary charger or other type of AC ‘power brick’ that would be less ubiquitous or less standardized,” increase flexibility and convenience, and cater to consumer demand for USB technology. Pet 45–46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88– 89). Petitioner further alleges that the addition of a USB input circuit would provide for an alternative where traditional charging methods are lost, damaged. or otherwise unavailable. Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 88). Thus, Petitioner has provided sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the teachings of the applied references. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We acknowledge, but are not convinced by, Patent Owner’s arguments that the nature of Richardson requires the ability to charge a high capacity battery and rapid recharging and therefore would not have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to include Zhao’s USB charging circuit in Richardson. See PO Resp. 25–31. In particular, we are not persuaded that Richardson is limited to high capacity, rapid recharging of batteries as Patent Owner suggests. Instead, Richardson broadly describes “an apparatus and method for temporarily delivering supplemental power to the electrical system of a vehicle” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 6) where “[t]he jump starter 10 may be configured for 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 or 48 volts” (id. ¶ 34). According to Richardson, this may be achieved by using “two or more batteries of the same or different voltage levels . . . to achieve the voltage requirements of the vehicle to be started.” Id. By way of example, Richardson states that “if the batteries 23 are both 12-volt batteries, the system may be configured for 12- or 24-volt operation” and “[i]f the batteries 23 are 12-volt batteries and a battery 25 is a 6-volt battery, 18- or 30-volt configurations may be provided.” Id. Neither Richardson’s claims nor its specification require any particular charging capacity or charging time. See generally Ex. 1005. While a single, near-final paragraph of Richardson introduces the concept of rapid charging of the jump starter batteries to charge a fleet of vehicles, Richardson characterization is permissive or optional. For example, Richardson states The charging system of the vehicle may be used to charge the capacitors 21 and jump starter batteries 22. . . . This allows the capacitors 21 and jump starter batteries 22 to be fully recharged in about 1 to 5 minutes and can therefore start many vehicles in a row without becoming discharged. Id. ¶ 55 (emphasis added). We do not view this singular occurrence as supplanting the breadth of Richardson’s complete disclosure. Furthermore, the crux of Patent Owner’s argument is that because of Richardson’s goal of charging high capacity batteries a USB charger would require significant charging time. PO Resp. 29; Sur-reply 2–14 But, nowhere does Patent Owner allege that a USB charger would not work given sufficient time.11 See generally PO Resp. and Sur-reply. And, when faced with no alternative, the person of ordinary skill in the art must balance the trade-offs and consider charging slowly, or not at all. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”); see also Winner 11 Petitioner in its Reply presents some evidence of charging times using a USB input charger. Pet. Reply 4–7; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 6–12, Appendix A. Patent Owner disputes the accuracy of Petitioner’s calculations. Sur-reply 2–11. But, whether Petitioner’s calculations are accurate or not, Petitioner’s proposed alternative modification does not remove the faster charging path and instead adds the convenience and flexibility of a secondary charging method where the primary and faster charging path is unavailable. Ex. 1044 ¶ 12.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 11,447,023 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,447,023 - Reolink Innovation Inc. / Shenzhen Reolink Technology Co., Ltd. v. Throughtek Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00509 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Throughtek-2012 and the Lorex Video; claims 1–3, 6, 10, 12–14, 17, and 18 are also unpatentable under two other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Bims, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’842 patent would have been a person having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of work experience with network and communication technologies. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 15–16). Patent Owner does not provide any proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art. In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’842 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts “no claim elements need a formal construction for purposes of resolving the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 55; Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 701 Fed. Appx. 946, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Petitioner states “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.” Id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1303; 37 C.F.R. §42.100). Patent Owner presents no proposed claim constructions. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS RE47,842 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
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.