- Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00846 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–13, 15, 16, 18–24, and 26–29 as obvious over Burger; claims 3, 14, and 17 over Burger and Robinson; claims 6 and 25 over Burger and …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“For the same reasons, and based on the same evidence, given in the ’233 FWD, we maintain our construction of “a third party that operates a trusted authority,” namely, “a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction,” and make clear that such a transaction is not limited to those in which the principal parties are the user being allowed access and the application being accessed. Based on the complete record, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner contends that “it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to incorporate the age verification method of Robinson in Burger so that Burger’s system can be used by businesses interested in conducting transactions that require age-verification.” Pet. 93. Petitioner argues that it would have been predictable to include Robinson’s age-verification feature in Burger’s system in light of Robinson’s explanation that merchants and their employees face penalties if they sell age-restricted goods (e.g., alcohol or tobacco) to underage individuals. Id. at 94–95 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–80). Dr. Traynor testifies that there would have been “a reasonable expectation of success because it merely involves combining known elements in a manner that would have been easily implemented and obvious to” a skilled artisan. Ex. 1003 ¶ 80. We credit Dr. Traynor’s uncontroverted testimony and find that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine the teachings of Burger and Robinson. As to claims 3, 14, and 17, Robinson describes a user registering a biometric sample, identity-verifying information (SID), and age-verifying information with a database of an age-verification system. Pet. 95–96 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15, 28, 43, 48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–178). We find that a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Burger and Robinson, such that Robinson’s age-verifying information would have been stored in the database of Burger’s network server 114. Id. at 95 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 176). Patent Owner does not provide separate arguments for claims 3, 14, and 17. PO Resp. 22. limitations of claims 3, 14, and 17, and that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, for combining Burger and Robinson. The record does not contain evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. Upon consideration of all the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3, 14, and 17 would have been obvious over Burger and Robinson.” slip op. at 36
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find that, after Burger’s network server 114 authenticates a user’s pocket vault ID, the user is granted access to pocket vault 102 and can select a transaction from a displayed menu, including use of a credit card. subsequent access to that credit card information, either by displaying it or through token 102a, is because network server 114 sent a communication to pocket vault 102 indicating that it successfully authenticated the pocket vault. Ex. 1003 ¶ 115. This is the obvious inference a skilled artisan would have drawn from Burger’s description of authenticating the pocket vault and subsequently allowing credit card information to be used. Thus, we find that, in this example, the operator of network server 114 is a third party that operates a trusted authority, the principle parties to the transaction are the user of pocket vault 102 and the retailer, and a message from network server 114 to pocket vault 102 allowing the credit card to be used (displayed or encoded in the token) is an access message allowing the user access to the application (file with credit card information). Accordingly, we find that this example of Burger teaches claim limitations 1.4 and 1.5.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,886,954 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,886,954 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00531 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Burfeind and Crowley; the Board did not reach the Smith/Sinha or Smith/Sinha/Gage grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the Declaration of Dr. Cooperstock, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention of the ’682 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering or equivalent discipline, and approximately two years’ experience in telecommunications or computer networking, whereby additional education could substitute for professional 6 U.S. Patent Appl. Publication No. 2008/0139165 A1, published June 12, 2008, filed December 11, 2006 (Ex. 1009, “Gage”). experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–63). We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’682 patent and the prior art. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1354–55 (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a POSITA at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In the Decision on Institution, we determined that no terms of the challenged claims require explicit construction.7 We discern no reason to further discuss construction of any claim terms in this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Burfeind and Crowley (Pet. 15–22), citing Dr. Cooperstock’s supporting testimony (Ex. 1003). In particular, Petitioner posits that a POSITA would have sought references for improving upon “Burfeind’s burdensome and imprecise manual participant selection process,” wherein Crowley is such a reference. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, ¶¶ 4, 7–8, 45; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–82). Petitioner contends that Crowley’s system provides numerous advantages, such as “enabling ‘spontaneous socializing’ and ‘convenient communication among friends,’” and “help[s] avoid the problem of friends who were out near each other, but never realized it until later.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 35). According to Petitioner, “Crowley thus provides express motivation for implementing its location-based features in Burfeind.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–86). Petitioner further contends that a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the features of Crowley in Burfeind. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 89–92). In particular, a POSITA would have readily been able to adapt Crowley’s location-tracking features “to identify user locations for the purpose of inviting individuals who are located near the event location.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 89–90). According to Petitioner, Burfeind and Crowley disclose similar systems for organizing meetings between individuals (id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstract; Ex. 1005 ¶ 5)), and because Burfeind “already contemplates techniques for grouping individuals in order to more conveniently select those individuals,” a POSITA “would have thus readily been able to modify Burfeind to determine the event organizer’s contacts that are located proximate to selected event venue.” Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 89–92). Thus, according to Petitioner, the POSITA: would have understood that implementing Crowley’s techniques in Burfeind would merely amount to the use of a known technique (Crowley’s location-based messaging) to improve similar systems in the same way (enabling the system to automatically send messages/invitations to nearby individuals), as well as applying a known technique to a known system ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 93).” slip op. at 28
- BurdenUnpatentable
“would have been obvious in view of Burfeind and Crowley (Pet. 15–51), starting with the contentions with respect to the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11. With respect to each of the limitations, Patent Owner does not respond.8 Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 11,470,682 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,470,682 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00530 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board denied the contingent motion to amend proposing substitute claims 17–32.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“iv. Claim 1 Conclusion Based on the complete record presented, Petitioner has shown that Gage teaches all limitations of claim 1. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Gage. v. Independent claim 8 Independent claim 8 recites a method of “providing situation related information to a situation authority via a situational network,” wherein the method comprises “receiving, by a participant device, a roll call query soliciting a reply related to a status of a participant based on the participant being determined, by the situation authority, to be geographically proximate to the situation,” “receiving, by the participant device, a selection of a status response from the participant,” and “sending the status response to the central authority, wherein the status response is included in a roll call list.” Ex. 1001, 34:46–57. Petitioner generally refers to its contentions with respect to claim 1. Pet. 34–36. In particular, Petitioner contends that Gage teaches a subscriber device that communicates a status indicator to the disaster response system through a subscriber status reporting system that implements a “situational network” configured for use during disasters. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 25). Petitioner additionally contends that Gage’s “disaster response system” is a “situation authority” because the disaster response system detects an occurrence of a disaster affecting a region, receives and aggregates information related to the disaster, and then provides the information to various participants in the network. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8–9, 21, 36, 45; Ex. 1003 ¶ 104). With respect to the “situational network” limitation, Patent Owner” slip op. at 39
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “situational network” (claims 1, 8, 13) Patent Owner points out that the district court has already construed” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“viii. Ground 1 Conclusion In light of the above analysis, we determine that Petitioner’s evidence” slip op. at 46
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“c. Conclusion on Petitioner’s Patentability Challenges based on Obviousness for Proposed Substitute Claims For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that the subject matter of proposed substitute claims 17–32 would have been unpatentable. IV. CONCLUSION9 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a” slip op. at 82
Patent outcomesUS 9,877,345 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,877,345 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Microsoft Corporation / Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01398 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under § 103 over Giobbi ’157, Giobbi ’139, and Dua.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“Here, as Petitioner points out, “the Challenged Claims . . . do not recite ‘means for’ or ‘step for.’” Pet. Reply 1. As the Federal Circuit stated, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112(f). See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Based on the record before us, this presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112(f) is not overcome. Although Patent Owner argues that “to claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function, amounts to pure functional claiming” (PO Sur-reply 5), the question here is whether “means for” analysis under § 112(f) applies at all. That is, as Patent Owner acknowledges, we must determine first whether the claim is even claiming a “means for” performing a function, “and then” determine whether the structure designed to perform that function is a general purpose computer. Id. As set forth in MPEP § 2181, the three-step analysis in determining whether § 112(f) applies begins with determining whether a claim limitation uses 1) the term “means” or “step” or 2) a nonce term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder. See MPEP § 2181(I). We agree with Petitioner’s contentions during oral argument that Patent Owner’s arguments appear to be “based on adding a third general purpose computer structure category that triggers MPF treatment not supported by any case law.” Tr. 32:10–12. Accordingly, although Patent Owner argues that “claim 1 invokes § 112[(f)]” (PO Resp. 8, 18), and then provides extensive arguments with supporting testimony from Dr. Jakobsson as to the algorithm defining “local, secured information” (id. at 10–20 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 18, 38–51, 53–55)) and “algorithm of control logic 250” (id. at 21–25 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 37, 58)), the presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112(f) is not overcome; thus, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to proceed to determining the corresponding algorithm.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Giobbi ’157 and Giobbi ’139 (Pet. 13–22), and furthermore combine the teachings of Dua to the teachings of Giobbi ’157 and Giobbi ’139 (id. at 23–25), citing Dr. Traynor’s testimony for support. In particular, Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have been motivated to integrate a PDK and RDC into a hybrid device by recognizing that Giobbi-157 and Giobbi-139 are “directed to similar operations,” “describe similar structures for performing those operations,” and have techniques that “are compatible with each other,” wherein combining the techniques “would have worked in the same manner already described in the references.” Id. at 21–22. Petitioner then contends that “Dua further corroborates the teachings of the Giobbi references and provides implementation details for integrating an RDC and PDK into the same device,” wherein “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the Giobbi references and Dua” because, at least “these references are all in the same field of endeavor.” Id. at 23–24. Patent Owner does not address separately Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence regarding Petitioner’s proffered reasoning to combine the references. See generally PO Resp. We have reviewed Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence regarding these limitations, as well as Petitioner’s proffered reasoning to combine the references, and we agree with and adopt them as our own. Pet. 13–25. Because Patent Owner does not separately address these limitations or Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for combining the references, the Petitioner’s positions regarding these limitations of independent claim 1 and the combination of references stand unopposed as a part of this trial. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Giobbi ’157, Giobbi ’139, and Dua as proffered in the Petition.” slip op. at 46
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Owner’s arguments that claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), with which, as discussed above, we do not agree. In particular, although Patent Owner argues that Giobbi ’157 does not teach or describe unlocking information from a service block in exchange for an access key “as required in the challenged claims” (PO Resp. 30), and thus fails to disclose the “enabling” function as required by the claim, claim 1 merely requires that one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enables one or more of an application, a function, and a service. In Giobbi ’157, when the PDK enters a proximity zone of the RDC, the RDC requests profile data stored within the PDK for authentication, and if the profile data received from the PDK is valid, the RDC “completes the transaction.” See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 59–63. We find availing Petitioner’s reliance of Giobbi ’157’s completion of a transaction by the PDK and the RDC to gain access as teaching “enabling access to secure physical or digital assets,” i.e., “enabling one or more of an application, a function, and service” by at least one of a PDK and RDC. See Pet. 37. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that the proposed combination of Giobbi ’157, Giobbi ’139, and Dua teaches “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service on one or more of the hybrid device and a device associated with the external RDC,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 8,646,042 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,646,042 - Microsoft Corporation / Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00573 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Giobbi ’157, Giobbi ’139, and Dua; the Board did not reach the other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“Here, as Petitioner points out, “the Challenged Claims . . . do not recite ‘means for’ or ‘step for.’” Pet. Reply 1. As the Federal Circuit stated, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112(f). See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Based on the record before us, this presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112(f) is not overcome. Although Patent Owner argues that “to claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function, amounts to pure functional claiming” (PO Sur-reply 5), the question here is whether “means for” analysis under § 112(f) applies at all. That is, as Patent Owner acknowledges, we must determine first whether the claim is even claiming a “means for” performing a function, “and then” determine whether the structure designed to perform that function is a general purpose computer. Id. As set forth in MPEP § 2181, the three-step analysis in determining whether § 112(f) applies begins with determining whether a claim limitation uses 1) the term “means” or “step” or 2) a nonce term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder. See MPEP § 2181(I). We agree with Petitioner’s contentions during oral argument that Patent Owner’s arguments appear to be “based on adding a third general purpose computer structure category that triggers MPF treatment not supported by any case law.” Tr. 32:10–12. Accordingly, although Patent Owner argues that “claim 1 invokes § 112[(f)]” (PO Resp. 8, 18), and then provides extensive arguments with supporting testimony from Dr. Jakobsson as to the algorithm defining “local, secured information” (id. at 10–20 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 18, 38–51, 53–55)) and “algorithm of control logic 250” (id. at 21–25 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 37, 58)), the presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112(f) is not overcome; thus, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to proceed to determining the corresponding algorithm.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“vi. Combining Giobbi ’157, Giobbi ’139, and Dua Petitioner further provides detailed explanations as to why a POSITA would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Giobbi ’157 and Giobbi ’139 (Pet. 13–22), and furthermore combine the teachings of Dua to the teachings of Giobbi ’157 and Giobbi ’139 (id. at 23–25), citing Dr. Traynor’s testimony for support. In particular, Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have been motivated to integrate a PDK and RDC into a hybrid device by recognizing that Giobbi-157 and Giobbi-139 are “directed to similar operations,” “describe similar structures for performing those operations,” and have techniques that “are compatible with each other,” wherein combining the techniques “would have worked in the same manner already described in the references.” Id. at 21–22. Petitioner then contends that “Dua further corroborates the teachings of the Giobbi references and provides implementation details for integrating an RDC and PDK into the same device,” wherein “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the Giobbi references and Dua” because, at least “these references are all in the same field of endeavor.” Id. at 23–24.” slip op. at 46
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Owner’s arguments that claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), with which, as discussed above, we do not agree. In particular, although Patent Owner argues that Giobbi ’157 does not teach or describe unlocking information from a service block in exchange for an access key “as required in the challenged claims” (PO Resp. 30), and thus fails to disclose the “enabling” function as required by the claim, claim 1 merely requires that one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enables one or more of an application, a function, and a service. In Giobbi ’157, when the PDK enters a proximity zone of the RDC, the RDC requests profile data stored within the PDK for authentication, and if the profile data received from the PDK is valid, the RDC “completes the transaction.” See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 59–63. We find availing Petitioner’s reliance of Giobbi ’157’s completion of a transaction by the PDK and the RDC to gain access as teaching “enabling access to secure physical or digital assets,” i.e., “enabling one or more of an application, a function, and service” by at least one of a PDK and RDC. See Pet. 37. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that the proposed combination of Giobbi ’157, Giobbi ’139, and Dua teaches “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service on one or more of the hybrid device and a device associated with the external RDC,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 8,646,042 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,646,042 - 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
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.