- Weatherford U.S., L.P v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00990 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–12 and 14–20 are unpatentable; claims 1–10 and 21–23 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 29–37 are unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied as to them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of skill is uncontested. Patent Owner adopts the level of skill identified by Petitioner as: [at] the time of the alleged invention in 2018, a POSITA[2] would have had a B.S. degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or a similar technical discipline, with at least five years of experience in oil or gas well drilling, completion, and/or subsurface production operations or in technical support of such operations including at least some experience in unconsolidated formations utilizing sand control methods and means. Also,” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“on embodiments of Yeh with concentric sand screens having nine shunt tubes (six transport tubes and three packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 4A–B) and eccentric sand screens with four shunt tubes (two transport tubes and two packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 8A, 8C). See Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Yet, Petitioner’s reasoning as to why “a higher-pressure shunt tube assembly necessitated greater wall thickness” rests on an unspoken one to one comparison between the shunt tubes of the different systems. See id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 291–297 (Petitioner’s declarant comparing possible transport tubes of different pressure regions without considering or addressing any difference in the number of transport tubes). However, the embodiments relied on by Petitioner have different numbers of shunt tubes, and thus the greater wall thickness does not appear to be “necessitated” in the way inferred by Petitioner. Further, Petitioner’s analysis would seem to be most appropriate when comparing two concentric sand screens for different pressure regions, or two eccentric sand screens for different pressure regions. relies on Yeh’s teachings related to a horizontal well bore of 5000 feet for the “concentric screen → crossover tool → eccentric screen” arrangement, as well as, for why the concentric screen needs to be rated for a high pressure. Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Petitioner also refers to these features for why one of skill in the art would combine the teachings of Yeh and Yeh2. Id. at 32. However, on cross-examination, Petitioner’s declarant agreed that it is concentric sand screens having a 6x3 shunt tube design that would provide the noted benefits of being rated for a higher pressure and being more robust (as relied on in the Petition), as compared to eccentric sand screens. Ex. 2013, 42:20–43:8; Sur-reply 4–5. This also exposes another issue with Petitioner’s arguments. Though Petitioner identifies that one of skill in the art would be aware that material choice, wall thickness, and pipe diameter all impact burst pressure of a pipe (Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1017, 24 (Equation (14))), the Petition essentially ignores the fact that the claims do not require a single pipe in isolation. The claims require two shunt tube assemblies, each surrounding a base pipe within a wellbore. It is uncontested that a wellbore provides a confined space for such a system and thus any change in wall thickness of one pipe can result in a significant impact in the function of the other pipes. We find the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 290–297) unpersuasive when discussing wall thickness because it focusses on basic considerations of a standalone pipe, without sufficient consideration of the claimed completion assembly with its required pipe and tube structure. PO Resp. 20–26.” slip op. at 17
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In response to Patent Owner’s argument concerning Yeh’s embodiments relied on in the Petition, Petitioner argues for the first time that Patent Owner’s declarant “conceded, Yeh discloses that both concentric and 47:19–48:21). Petitioner does not provide a citation to Yeh or a citation to where the Petition relies on the same number of shunt tubes between concentric and eccentric screens. The deposition cited by Petitioner discusses Yeh at column 16, lines 26 through 35. However, the Petition does not cite or rely on these teachings of Yeh. Thus, we decline to consider this late argument.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring the petition to identify “with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Yeh and Yeh2 teaches determining the shunt tube system operating pressures associated with the distal end of the production zone, but also more generally, determining the operating pressures along the entire production zone. With this knowledge of the system operating pressures, Petitioner argues that one of skill in the art would have selected eccentric screens for the distal end of the production zone “at any point at which the slurry pressure dropped below the pressure capacity of the eccentric screen shunt tubes.” Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1005, 30:16–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 388). In other words, knowing that the pressure decreases as you approach the toe, Yeh’s low-pressure rated eccentric screens could be used from some point prior to and covering the toe. determined pressure.” PO Resp. 37–38. We disagree. As discussed above, the record supports Petitioner’s position that one of skill in the art would have “understood the need to determine the shunt tube system operating pressure throughout the horizontal wellbore.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 383; see also Pet. 64–65. We find convincing Petitioner’s argument that one of skill with this understanding of the system pressures would select a shunt tube system rated to not only address the distal end, but also to address the needs of the adjacent region, so long as the pressure rating supported such a selection. See Pet. 65–67; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 385–388.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,333,007 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,333,007 - PTAB · Dec 8, 2025 · IPR2025-01064 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on all four §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Volkswagen would prevail on at least claim 1 over Weese.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A. Legal Standards — Petitioner’s Burden “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the 1 Amendments to 35 U.S.C. § 103 enacted by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”) took effect in March 2013. The ’353 patent issued from an application filed in September 2004. See Ex. 1001, code (22). Thus, we apply the pre-AIA version of § 103. grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). B. Legal Standards — Obviousness A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if made available in the record, which has not happened here. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’353 patent “would have possessed at least a four-year degree in physics, biophysics, medical physics, or a related field, and two years of experience in developing and/or applying computed tomography methods,” wherein “[a]dditional education and professional experience are interchangeable.” Pet. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–55. “Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears to be consistent with the ’353 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyOther
“unpatentable as having been obvious over Weese, including supporting testimony from Dr. Peterson. See Pet. 17–22, 26–83; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 138–149, 159–257. Patent Owner opposes. See Prelim. Resp. 1–2, 6–7. We conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions, as follows.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“(iii) Analysis Based on the present record, we determine Petitioner’s contentions regarding the third step of claim 1 are supported sufficiently by the cited disclosures in Weese and Dr. Peterson’s testimony to justify institution of review. In particular, Weese describes obtaining a plurality of second images of the patient’s internal organs (i.e., PET image I0 in Fig. 1, and PET image I10 in Fig. 3) using a second imaging technique (i.e., PET). See Ex. 1005, Figs. 1, 3, and 6, ¶¶ 47–49, 58–59, 72. In particular, PET image I0 in Figure 1 may be a reconstructed “volume image[]” composed of a plurality of “quasi two-dimensional” “slice images” that, when combined, represent a three-dimensional region inside the patient. Id. ¶¶ 48, 58, 61; see also Pet. 56–57. PET image I10 in Figure 3 may be a similarly reconstructed volume image composed of a plurality of slice images.4 See 4 We do not rely here on Petitioner’s alternative theory that Weese discloses a “plurality” of second images because PET images I0 and I10 are “superposed” images encompassing “several states of motion.” Pet. 58. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 61, 83–84. Patent Owner’s sole opposition to Petitioner’s assertions in this regard are limited to whether Weese “obtain[s]” PET images I0 and I10 as recited in claim 1, which we address below. Also, it appears that PET images I0 and I10 are obtained while also obtaining second movement measurements of the patient’s internal organs using a second sensor system (i.e., motion acquisition unit 12 and motion sensor 15 / S1) which is independent from the PET imaging technique. See Ex. 1005, Figs. 1 and 6, ¶ 65 (“[T]he respiratory motion is determined during the acquisition of the PET projections P1 by means of a respiratory motion sensor provided on the patient and therefrom the frequency function f(r) or, more generally, a state of motion function F1 is derived for the construction of the motion model M2.”). Furthermore, Weese describes how frequency function f(r) is utilized to facilitate image comparison between CT and PET images at common motion states. See id. ¶¶ 31, 49–51, 70–71, 75–77, 79–80, 83; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 214–216 (Dr. Peterson’s supporting testimony). Patent Owner’s sole opposition to Petitioner’s assertions in this regard are limited to whether Weese “obtain[s]” PET images I0 and I10 as recited in claim 1, which we address below. Patent Owner’s two opposing arguments are unavailing, based on the present preliminary record. First, Petitioner relies on reconstructed PET images I0 and I10 as satisfying the “plurality of second images” recited in claim 1, not PET projections P1 from which PET images I0 and I10 are derived. See, e.g., Pet. 56, 58 (“I0 and I10 disclose and render obvious a ‘plurality of second images’ in two ways” — “I0 and I10 may be ‘volume images’ formed using ‘known’ techniques,” and “I0 and I10 are ‘superposed’ PET images encompassing ‘several states of motion,’ which” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,265,353 - Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2025 · IPR2017-00858 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claims 18, 19, 21, 26, and 29 unpatentable as obvious over Burns and LaCelle; collateral estoppel also rendered those claims unpatentable.
RulingsRemand decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Valve contends that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have: a bachelor’s degree in an industrial design or engineering field, and approximately two years of relevant experience, for example. Alternatively, the same or an equivalent level of skill in the art could be obtained by end users or hobbyists who have substantial experience modifying or creating customized game controllers that include features to better suit their needs, even without any college education. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 11). Ironburg, without expressly defining the level of ordinary skill, contends that a college degree of the type identified by Valve is not required. See Supp. PO Resp. 4–6. Ironburg notes that the level of ordinary skill is “relatively low” and the technology involved “is simple and straightforward.” Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 21). Ironburg’s contentions regarding the level of ordinary skill are consistent with Valve’s position, id. at 6, which we apply in our analysis. D. Whether Claims 18, 19, 21, 26, and 29 Are “Patentably Distinct” from” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Ex. 1001, 10:65–11:3. In IPR2016-00948, in which we addressed similar claim limitations in a related patent, U.S. Patent 8,641,525 (Ex. 1038, the “’525 patent”),12 we found that “thickness” as used in claims such as claims 18 and 19 refers to “the dimension of the elongate member perpendicular to 12 Claims 10 and 11 of the ’525 patent contain the limitations directed to the thickness of the elongate member that substantially parallel the limitations introduced in claims 18 and 19 respectively. Compare Ex. 1038, 5:13–16, with Ex. 1001, 10:65–11:3. the surface of the elongate member (i.e., also the direction of displacement when the user activates the control function).” Ex. 1058, 10–11; Ex. 1055, 13; Ex. 1056. We interpret “thickness” the same way in this proceeding.13” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Whether the Combined Teachings of Burns and LaCelle Describe All Elements of Claims 18, 19, 21, 26, and 29 Valve argues that it is “undisputed that all elements of base claim 1 are taught by the combination of Burns in view of LaCelle.” Valve Remand Br. 21 (citing Pet. 33–38; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 23–25, 27–29). Ironburg disagrees, responding that “neither Burns nor LaCelle discloses the first control with an elongate member having a second surface arranged to be non-parallel with the back, outer surface of case.” Ironburg Remand Br. 20. Ironburg’s argument appears to rest on the issue of whether LaCelle describes its underside items as a control. We have already found that LaCelle’s underside items are controls as explained above. However, even if LaCelle did not disclose that its underside items were controls, Valve relies upon Burns as describing this aspect of claim 1. Valve Supp. Reply 9–10. Either way, Valve persuades us that the Burns and LaCelle, when combined as Valve suggests, teach every element of claim 1. In Parts II.D.1–4 above, we have also analyzed the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence on the issues of whether Burns describes the limitations introduced in each of claims 18, 19, 21, 26, and 29. For the reasons expressed above, Valve persuades us that Burns and LaCelle, when combined as Valve suggests, teach every element of dependent claims 18, 19, 21, 26, and 29. We have already concluded that Valve has proven that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine teachings of Burns and LaCelle to arrive at the invention of claim 1, and those motivations also suffice for dependent claims 18, 19, 21, 26, and 29, all of which introduce limitations that we find to be described by Burns. Accordingly, we find that Valve has proven by a preponderance of evidence that the combined teachings of Burns and LaCelle render claims 18, 19, 21, 26, and 29 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“On the first issue, we find that LaCelle’s underside items would have been understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as a “control.” LaCelle describes the article illustrated in all its figures as a “game controller.” Ex. 1005, code (57). Dr. Rempel testifies that even if an ordinarily skilled artisan “were not 100% certain that the identified features on the back of the . . . LaCelle . . . controller[] are functional controls, their location and appearance certainly suggests functional back controls to one of ordinary skill in the art (even if another interpretation were also possible).” Ex. 1019 ¶ 12. The Federal Circuit has instructed us that we erred by failing to consider Dr. Rempel’s testimony supporting Valve’s Supplement Reply. Valve II, at 16. Dr. Rempel’s testimony is consistent with the manner in which LaCelle graphically depicts the items on the underside of its game controller, and we credit that testimony as being persuasive. Additionally, as we explain below, we do not find that Valve must prove that LaCelle describes its underside items as a control to support its position that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the curved shape of LaCelle’s underside items to the surface of Burns’s elongate members. On the second issue, we find that LaCelle undisputedly describes its items on the underside of the controller as being curved. On the third issue, the probative value of Valve’s Supplemental Reply argument and supporting evidence, the Federal Circuit held that we ignored important testimony establishing that an ordinarily skilled artisan “‘would have combined LaCelle and Burns’ and ‘would recognize that the predictable result of the combination — a back paddle having an end that is curved like that of LaCelle — could have better coupling with the user’s finger.’” Id., at 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1019 ¶ 39 with added emphasis). The Federal Circuit also refocused our obviousness inquiry on “whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Burns and LaCelle, not whether the combination would with absolute certainty result in the desired outcome.” Id. at 18. Dr. Rempel’s testimony cited by the Federal Circuit establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the curved shape of LaCelle’s underside items to Burns’s elongate members. Our original Remand Decision failed to consider that testimony, and the Federal Circuit has identified that failure as error. Valve II, at 17. The argument proffered by Ironburg to rebut Dr. Rempel’s testimony is not supported by evidence. See Ironburg Remand Br. 23–24 (citing our Remand Decision but failing to cite evidence in support of Ironburg’s proffered argument).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,289,688 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,289,688 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currecy Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00839 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3, 4, and 7–11 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish random mirror selection.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSITA because Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology. For example, the ʼ863 patent provides, as relevant background, a discussion of anti-counterfeiting devices made up of arrays of lenses used to display unique images, placed on currency and labels for retail products. Ex. 1001, 1:31–43. The ʼ863 patent also discusses using lenses to create holograms. Id. at 2:7–20. Similarly, the prior art in this field, such as Fuhse847, relates to the use of lenses and mirrors to create hologram images for security purposes. Ex. 1022, 1–8. These descriptions demonstrate, consistent with Petitioner’s proposed definition, that a POSITA would need an educational background to understand optics, lenses, and mirrors along with professional experience with optical security features to understand the creation holograms and images using lenses and mirrors for the purpose of preventing counterfeiting of currency and other valuable products. Patent Owner’s proposed definition differs from Petitioner’s in that it includes “or a similar field” when describing the education level of a POSITA and it includes “with diffusive light” when describing the experience level of a POSITA. As to the first difference, the addition of “similar field” introduces vagueness and unnecessary uncertainty into the definition. Patent Owner does not explain what aspects of computer science would make it a field similar to the others listed, or what additional engineering coursework would suffice to make a person a POSITA. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 25. Nor does Patent Owner explain, generally, what makes a field “similar” to the ones listed or how to make that determination. As to the second difference, the addition of “with diffusive light”” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner did not move to exclude Dr. Hesselink’s testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.62; Pet. Reply 25 (arguing that Patent Owner waived its ability to challenge Dr. Hesselink’s qualification.). At the hearing, Patent Owner explained that its argument that Dr. Hesselink is not a POSITA “goes to [the] weight” of Dr. Hesselink’s testimony. Tr. 37:8. In any event, Patent Owner’s argument is based on its proposed definition of a POSITA, which we do not adopt. We, therefore, are not persuaded that Dr. Hesselink testimony should be given little or no weight.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require express construction.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner agrees “that the terms do not require construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition.” PO Resp. 13. We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision on institution. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“teaches the preamble and all of the limitations of claim 1. Pet. 12–34. Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to automate the computations for designing micro mirror arrays in Fuhse847 with Rich’s teaching of a processor running software. Id. at 14–17. Patent Owner does not specifically dispute Petitioner’s contentions regarding the preamble, limitations 1b–1e, and the motivation to combine Fuhse847 and Rich. See generally PO Resp. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence and are persuaded that the combination of Fuhse847 and Rich teaches the preamble and undisputed limitations 1b–1e, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Fuhse847 and Rich in the manner set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 11,448,863 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,448,863 - Vizio, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00300 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over either of two combinations: Kim, TechnoBuffalo, MissingRemote, Hunt, and Hunleth; or Kim, Ma, Hunt, and Hunleth.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“An expert witness must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to testify in the form of an opinion. Fed. R. Evid. 702. We deem Dr. Houh to have the requisite qualifications to provide opinion testimony, including obtaining “a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT, where his research focused on building high-speed networks and developing applications for remote video capture, processing, and display—technologies central to the ’384 Patent.” Pet. Reply 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7, 10–13). The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Dr. Houh’s industry experience establishes that he at least possesses ordinary skill in the art, and we do not disqualify his testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7, 10–13. We consider the factors raised by the parties in weighing his testimony with other evidence provided, including the facts and data on which it is based, in reaching our determinations here.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in August of 2012 would have been knowledgeable and familiar with [user interfaces] in consumer products that are pertinent to the ’384 Patent. A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical, Software, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of television and/or digital video systems, human-computer interaction, or related technologies. Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner agreed with and adopted this definition. PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2002 ¶ 40. The definition proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’384 patent and prior art of record and is supported by expert testimony. We adopt this definition.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“As neither the claim language nor the specification provides the necessary support for a construction requiring exclusion of specific information from either view, we decline to adopt such a construction. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claim constructions that exclude a particular element must find support either in the words of the claim or through “express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation.”). As reviewed above, the claim language and specification, while describing different things that would be present in elements could not be common to both views. To the extent Patent Owner’s proposed construction specifies elements to be excluded, we find no support for these exclusions, and in fact, find opposite language in the specification of the ’384 patent: while Patent Owner proposes that a detail view must not include “information that is associated with a series,” the specification describes a detail view as provided in the case where “a series with only a single episode” has been selected. Ex. 1001, 44:64–65. This is consistent with the possibility in the claims that a detail view may relate to “a single show.” Ex. 1001, 56:66, 57:36, 58:51. As discussed, the claims recite that a detail view is provided “if [a] selection . . . is for one of a movie or single show” and that the detail view “presents information about a selected item of the VOD content” and a that a digest view is provided “if the selection in the collection view is for a series” and that digest view “provides a listing of two or more episodes associated with a series.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 57:23–27, 57:31–37. Thus, by the language of the claims themselves, the provision of “either a detail view or a digest view” relates to the received third selection and is based on what that selection was. The “either . . . or” in the claim thus relates directly to the third selection and not to the resulting views. This is consistent with Dr. Surati’s testimony. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 67 (The claims “present[] the third selection as a binary choice: either the third selection is a series (in which case the digest view is presented), or the third selection is a movie or single show (in which case the detail view is presented).” While Patent Owner insists that the language and logic of the claim “excludes providing a view that can be both a detail view and a digest view,” (PO Resp. 21) we determine that this proposed negative limitation finds no support through the Therefore, we decline to adopt the proposed claim construction that further limits the plain language of the claims. Having rejected the proposed limitations on the plain language of the claims, we find that no further construction of the claim language is required in order to address the dispute before us. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the combination of Kim, TechnoBuffalo, MissingRemote, Hunt, and Hunleth, including Petitioner’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. We determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined and used the details regarding a content provider user interface provided in TechnoBuffalo, MissingRemote, Hunt, to provide details relating to the user interfaces provided by a CP provider on an intelligent television, such as that of Kim. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–106, 109–110, 112. We additionally determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See id. ¶¶ 113– 119.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 9,578,384 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,578,384 - Vizio, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00723 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over either Kim, TechnoBuffalo, MissingRemote, Hunt, and Hunleth, or Kim, Ma, Hunt, and Hunleth.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“As neither the claim language nor the specification provides the necessary support for a construction requiring exclusion of specific information from either view, we decline to adopt such a construction. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claim constructions that exclude a particular element must find support either in the words of the claim or through “express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation.”). As reviewed above, the claim language and specification, while describing different things that would be present in elements could not be common to both views. To the extent Patent Owner’s proposed construction specifies elements to be excluded, we find no support for these exclusions, and in fact, find opposite language in the specification of the ’384 patent: while Patent Owner proposes that a detail view must not include “information that is associated with a series,” the specification describes a detail view as provided in the case where “a series with only a single episode” has been selected. Ex. 1001, 44:64–65. This is consistent with the possibility in the claims that a detail view may relate to “a single show.” Ex. 1001, 56:66, 57:36, 58:51. As discussed, the claims recite that a detail view is provided “if [a] selection . . . is for one of a movie or single show” and that the detail view “presents information about a selected item of the VOD content” and a that a digest view is provided “if the selection in the collection view is for a series” and that digest view “provides a listing of two or more episodes associated with a series.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 57:23–27, 57:31–37. Thus, by the language of the claims themselves, the provision of “either a detail view or a digest view” relates to the received third selection and is based on what that selection was. The “either . . . or” in the claim thus relates directly to the third selection and not to the resulting views. This is consistent with Dr. Surati’s testimony. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 67 (The claims “present[] the third selection as a binary choice: either the third selection is a series (in which case the digest view is presented), or the third selection is a movie or single show (in which case the detail view is presented).” While Patent Owner insists that the language and logic of the claim “excludes providing a view that can be both a detail view and a digest view,” (PO Resp. 21) we determine that this proposed negative limitation finds no support through the Therefore, we decline to adopt the proposed claim construction that further limits the plain language of the claims. Having rejected the proposed limitations on the plain language of the claims, we find that no further construction of the claim language is required in order to address the dispute before us. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the combination of Kim, TechnoBuffalo, MissingRemote, Hunt, and Hunleth, including Petitioner’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. We determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined and used the details regarding a content provider user interface provided in TechnoBuffalo, MissingRemote, Hunt, to provide details relating to the user interfaces provided by a CP provider on an intelligent television, such as that of Kim. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–106, 109–110, 112. We additionally determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See id. ¶¶ 113– 119.” slip op. at 38
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Our rules provide that a petitioner must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a). Our rules also state that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” Id. § 42.23(b). “‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)15 (“CTPG”), 74. A petitioner “may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id. at 73. “Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed” slip op. at 49
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that each of the TechnoBuffalo 1:09 view and the MissingRemote 1:54 view teaches or suggests the presentation of “information about a set of the VOD content that are associated with a series,” as recited. Petitioner sufficiently shows the TechnoBuffalo 1:09 view is a digest view as it presents the “year, rating, number of episodes . . . , [and] episode lengths” for the displayed series. See Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 165). Similarly, Petitioner sufficiently shows that MissingRemote 1:54 view presents episode titles about episodes in the displayed season. See id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 171). Petitioner argues alternatively that each of these would have been presented upon selection of a series in its proposed combination. Pet. 42–43, 44. We determine, in both cases, that presenting information regarding multiple individual episodes to be a sufficient showing that each presents “information about a set of the 13 We note that, applying Patent Owner’s requested claim construction for “providing either a detail view . . . or a digest view . . .” in full would lead to the same result with respect to, for example, the TechnoBuffalo 1:09 view and the Missing Remote 1:54 view. Each of these teach “a view of information about a set of the VOD content that are associated with a series without information only about a single episode” (as they contain information regarding multiple episodes, see supra footnote 10 and PO Surreply 6) but not “a view of information about a single episode without information that is associated with a series.” Additionally, Petitioner persuasively argues that the prior art demonstrates that “a POSITA would have avoided using UI designs for a TV series to display a single movie, and vice versa. Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 183–184) digest view. Additionally, Petitioner sufficiently shows the presentation of a screen including information about a movie if a movie has been selected from a collection view, and information about a set of content associated with a series if a series was selected, as per the recitations of limitations 1.6 and 1.7 of claim 1. TechnoBuffalo and MissingRemote teach digest view screens relating to a series selection, Hunt and Hunleth teach information screens responsive to a movie or single show selection, and the combination and cited testimony support the provision of the appropriate screen in response to the user’s selection from a collection view, as detailed above with respect to Petitioner’s allegations.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 9,578,384 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,578,384 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currecy Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00838 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 6 over Fuhse262, and the dependent claims over the additional asserted combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSITA because Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology. For example, the ʼ191 patent provides, as relevant background, a discussion of anti-counterfeiting devices made up of arrays of lenses used to display unique images, placed on currency and labels for retail products. Ex. 1001, 1:27–42. The ʼ191 patent also discusses using lenses to create holograms. Id. at 2:6–21. Similarly, the prior art in this field, such as Fuhse262, relates to the use of lenses and mirrors to create hologram images for security purposes. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1–7. These descriptions demonstrate, consistent with Petitioner’s proposed definition, that a POSITA would need an educational background to understand optics, lenses, and mirrors along with professional experience with optical security features to understand the creation of holograms and images using lenses and mirrors for the purpose of preventing counterfeiting of currency and other valuable products.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“spot. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 95–96, Fig. 10. Dr. Hesselink credibly testifies that while Fuhse262 depicts rays that form a light spot, the rays depicted are “chief rays” that depict only the center rays of light for each optical element. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178–179. Ambient light, however, reflects from the entire surface of the mirrors and forms reflected beams of light, not just the center rays aimed at the center point. Id. ¶ 178. According to Dr. Hesselink, the “chief ray” is representative of the larger bundle of rays that form the beams of light reflected off of the mirrors. See Id. ¶ 44. The volume of the voxel is set by the intersection of these beams and the center of the voxel is the point at which the center rays of each beam intersect. Id. ¶ 179. Although Dr. Lindstrand testifies “a POSITA would not have understood Fuhse262 to disclose creating a voxel” (Ex. 2004 ¶ 43), Dr. Lindstrand does not dispute Dr. Hesselink’s testimony that light would reflect off of the entire surface of Fuhse262’s mirrors and form reflected beams of light. See Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 42–58; Ex. 1055, 112:15–21 (“You also agree the ambient light would not just strike the center of the surface, it would strike the entire surface, correct? . . . THE WITNESS: I would say that that is a fair and accurate description.”) Dr. Hesselink’s testimony explaining that light beams would reflect off the entire surface of Fuhse262’s micromirrors and would create a voxel when they intersect with each other, provides sufficient support demonstrating how a POSITA would have understood Fuhse262’s disclosure of light rays being reflected off of mirrors and converging at a light spot shown in Figure 10. See Unification Techs. LLC v. Micron Tech. Inc., 2024 WL 3738401 at *7 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024) (affirming the use of expert testimony to demonstrate how a skilled artisan would have understood a prior art reference’s disclosure as teaching a claim limitation).” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require express construction.” Pet. 15. “Patent Owner agrees that the terms do not require construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition.” PO Resp. 13. We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision on institution. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 12
- BurdenUnpatentable
“off the entire surface of Fuhse262’s micromirrors and would create a voxel when they intersect with each other, provides sufficient support demonstrating how a POSITA would have understood Fuhse262’s disclosure of light rays being reflected off of mirrors and converging at a light spot shown in Figure 10. See Unification Techs. LLC v. Micron Tech. Inc., 2024 WL 3738401 at *7 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024) (affirming the use of expert testimony to demonstrate how a skilled artisan would have understood a prior art reference’s disclosure as teaching a claim limitation). Patent Owner argues that light beams that intersect in an irregular or unintentional manner would not necessarily form a voxel, but does not explicitly show that Fuhse262’s light beams do, in fact, intersect in an irregular manner. PO Resp. 19. Petitioner has shown, as supported by Fuhse262’s disclosure, that Fuhse262’s mirrors are each oriented intentionally to point to a spot that allows them to create a light spot at the intended coordinates. See Pet. 27 (“In particular, Fuhse262 explains that ‘[t]he position of the mirror surfaces, i.e. the normal vector n, is to be determined in such a way that the light incident from a specified direction k ⃗ is reflected onto the focal point (x0, y0, z0) for all micromirrors 102 assigned to light spot 110.’”) (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 96–97). This disclosure, combined with Dr. Hesselink’s testimony that the intersection of light beams from the mirrors would create not just a spot but a voxel due to light reflecting off the entire surface of Fuhse262’s mirrors demonstrates that Fuhse262 teaches limitation 1b.5.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 10,901,191 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,901,191 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currency Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00836 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 6–14, 28, and 32–39 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Fuhse262, Fuhse925, Jordan, and Fuhse172.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ways: the first is the inclusion of “or a similar field” when describing the education level of a POSITA, and second is the inclusion of “with diffusive light” when describing the experience level of a POSITA. We decline to include either of these additional requirements in the definition of the level of ordinary skill. As to the first difference, Patent Owner does not explain what aspects of computer science would make it a field similar to the others listed, nor what additional engineering coursework would suffice. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 25. Nor does Patent Owner explain, generally, what makes a field “similar” to the ones listed or how to make that determination. We determine that Patent uncertainty into the definition and, therefore, do not adopt it. As to the second difference, Patent Owner proposes that the level of skill include two years’ experience with “diffusive light micro-optic security features.” The ʼ294 patent, however, does not mention “diffusive light.” Instead, the challenge claims and the written description of the ʼ294 patent use the term “ambient light.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract, 20:50, 59. Ambient light, such as sunlight, includes both parallel and diffuse light. See Ex. 1055, 97:21–98:8; Ex. 1006 ¶ 54 (describing the use of sunlight or ceiling light). The ʼ294 patent mentions ambient light in an ordinary manner without discussing any distinctions between parallel light and diffuse light or giving any significance to the nature of diffuse light and its effects on the invention. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s definition of level of ordinary skill except that we find that the phrase “at least” in Petitioner’s proposed definition creates a vague, open-ended upper bound for the level of ordinary skill, and we therefore do not adopt that aspect of the proposal.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made”) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis added); Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“What a reference teaches a person of ordinary skill is not . . . limited to what a reference specifically ‘talks about’ or what is specifically ‘mentioned’ or ‘written’ in the reference.”). Here, Petitioner has established that Fuhse262 discloses mirrors that reflect light rays converging at a light spot. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 95–96, Fig. 10. Dr. Hesselink credibly testifies that while Fuhse262 depicts rays that form a light spot, the rays depicted are “chief rays” that depict only the center rays of light for each optical element. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 169–170. Ambient light, however, reflects from the entire surface of the mirrors and forms reflected beams of light, not just the center rays aimed at the center point. Id. ¶ 170. According to Dr. Hesselink, the “chief ray” is representative of the larger bundle of rays that form the beams of light reflected off of the mirrors. See Id. ¶ 44. The volume of the voxel is set by the intersection of these beams and the center of the voxel is the point at which the center rays of each beam intersect. Id. ¶ 171. Although Dr. Lindstrand testifies a POSITA would not have understood Fuhse262 to disclose creating a voxel (Ex. 2004 ¶ 43), Dr. Lindstrand does not dispute Dr. Hesselink’s testimony that light would reflect off of the entire surface of Fuhse262’s mirrors and form reflected beams of light. See Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 42– 58; Ex. 1055, 112:15–21 (“You also agree the ambient light would not just strike the center of the surface, it would strike the entire surface, correct? . . . THE WITNESS: I would say that that is a fair and accurate description.”) would reflect off the entire surface of Fuhse262’s micromirrors and would create a voxel when they intersect with each other, provides sufficient support demonstrating how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Fuhse262’s disclosure of light rays being reflected off of mirrors and converging at a light spot shown in Figure 10. See Unification Techs. LLC v. Micron Tech. Inc., 2024 WL 3738401 at *7 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024) (affirming the use of expert testimony to demonstrate how a skilled artisan would have understood a prior art reference’s disclosure as teaching a claim limitation).” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner argues that “no claim terms require express construction to resolve the challenges here.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner “agree[s] that the terms Resp. 13–14. Having reviewed the record and the arguments before us, we determine that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As to Petitioner’s more general allegations regarding motivation to combine the embodiments of Fuhse262 and reasonable expectation of success, we agree with Petitioner for the reasons provided in the Petition and summarized above. Specifically, we agree with Petitioner that Fuhse262 concave mirrors and lenses with embodiments that use micromirrors. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 83 (“In order to still obtain a higher resolution in the produced light-spot image with an unchanged high floating height, the large mirrors or lenses used in the previous exemplary embodiments are each replaced by a plurality of smaller micromirrors or microprisms, which together have essentially the same optical effect as the original optical element.”). We also agree that the embodiments of Fuhse262 build on each other and often refer back to each other. For example, Fuhse262 expressly refers back to “previous exemplary embodiments” when explaining that micromirrors may replace other optical elements in the various embodiments. Ex. 1006 ¶ 83. Fuhse262’s Figures 8(a) through 8(d) build on each successive example, adding and modifying the configuration of mirrors disclosed in the previous figure. See Id. ¶¶ 88, 94 (explaining that Figure 8(b) is based on Figure 8(a) but shows mirrors arranged in checkerboard-like manner and Figures 8(c) and 8(d) further modify the configuration with every “fourth field” and “ninth field” respectively being assigned to specific light spots.) Fuhse262 also explains that Figure 9 is a sectional view of Figure 8 and that Figure 10 illustrates the “calculation of the flat mirror surfaces of the micromirrors” of Figures 8 and 9. Id. ¶¶ 91, 95. For the aforementioned reasons, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the relied upon embodiments of Fuhse262.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 10,189,294 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,189,294 - Tesla, Inc. v. Iqar Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00543 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Tesla’s rehearing request and left claims 8 and 18 not shown unpatentable under §103 over Hongo, Obradovich, Niki, and Newstrom.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s counsel during the hearing or any of Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. As confirmed by Petitioner’s counsel, Petitioner relies solely on Newstrom’s disclosure of loading its spatial database 20 into solid state memory via a “wireless connection to [a] server” in asserting that the database “may be hosted on a server that is remote from a vehicle.” Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1012, 8:26–38; Ex. 1003 ¶ 197). Column 8, lines 27–29 is the only disclosure in Newstrom of a “wireless connection.” Although Petitioner argues that Newstrom’s system communicates wirelessly with the geospatial database while the vehicle is being driven (see Dec. 38 (citing Pet. 83); Tr. 19:20–22), Petitioner relies solely on the single instance of “wireless” in Newstrom’s disclosure to satisfy the recitation that the database (which Petitioner maps to Newstrom’s geospatial database 20) is “remote.” In the Decision, we explained that Petitioner’s reliance on Newstrom’s “wireless connection” and its assertion that the geospatial database may be hosted on a remote server were not persuasive to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to prove the unpatentability of claims 8 and 18 by a preponderance of the evidence, especially given Newstrom’s express disclosure that the geospatial database is located on the vehicle. Dec. 40–42. For example, we stated: Petitioner does not explain adequately why Newstrom’s disclosure that, when first initializing the database manager, the geospatial database is loaded into solid state memory by, for example, wirelessly transferring data from a server means that the geospatial database is remote from the vehicle. Similarly, Petitioner does not explain adequately why Newstrom’s disclosure that the database manager can load new portions of the data into solid state memory as the vehicle location changes means that the geospatial database is remote from the vehicle. Nor does Petitioner’s conclusory contention that “the geospatial database 20 may be hosted on a server that is remote from a vehicle” (Pet. 83 (emphasis added)) apprise us of disclosure that Newstrom’s geospatial database is remote from the vehicle. Dr. Morellas’ testimony is substantially identical to the Petition (see Ex. 1003 ¶197) and, thus, also fails to provide adequate support for Petitioner’s assertions. During the hearing, counsel for Petitioner confirmed that it relied solely on Newstrom’s disclose of the database using a “wireless connection” by which the database manager communicates with the database in arguing that Newstrom’s geospatial database 20 is remote from vehicle 12. Tr. 19:14–24; see also Ex. 1012, 8:27–29. Petitioner, however, fails to explain adequately how such wireless communication indicates that the database is not located on vehicle, especially given Newstrom’s express disclosure (discussed above) that the database is onboard the vehicle.” slip op. at 5
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Initially, Petitioner’s reliance on assertions made in its Reply, relying on Dr. Morellas’ second declaration, fail to persuade us that we overlooked or misapprehended any arguments made in the Petition. Such post-institution arguments attempting to bolster the Petition are untimely and, thus, improper. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019).6 Even considering Petitioner’s Reply arguments, however, we are not” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,882,399 - Alpinestars S.P.A. / Alpinestars USA Inc. v. Dainese S.P.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00750 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–22 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its three obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Because Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined EP’536 (with or without Hatton) and CN’180 in the proposed manner, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1 and 18. 5. Claims 2–17 and 19–22 Because Petitioner has not shown a reasonably likelihood of prevailing with respect to independent claims 1 and 18, Petitioner also has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the claims that depend therefrom (claims 2–17 and 19–22).” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not offer its own definition of the level of ordinary skill or dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s unchallenged description of an ordinarily skilled artisan appears consistent with the subject matter discussed in the references and that of the challenged claims, for purposes of this Decision we apply Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“For purposes of our analysis, we need only address the meaning of “planar structure,” and only to note that this limitation requires that all portions of the casing body, when inflated against the first mesh portion, second mesh portion, and tie elements, “form a planar structure” when the casing body is inflated. This is evident from both the claim language and the written description of the ’065 patent. Limitation [1e] of claim 1 recites that in the inflated condition, “said portions of the casing body” are “inflated against said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements.” We understand “said portions of the casing body” to refer to all of the portions of the casing body. Likewise, “said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements” refers to the entire mesh structure recited in limitation [1a]. Thus, this limitation requires all of the casing-body portions to inflate against the entire mesh structure to form the “planar structure.” This reading is consistent with the Specification. The Specification teaches that “[t]he first mesh portion and the second mesh portion together with the tie elements determine with the casing body the final shape of the inflatable element,” which “can reach a generally flat and planar final shape.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–23; see also id. at 4:59–5:3 (teaching that the casing body inflated within the mesh structure results in a “globally planar structure”). Here, “inflatable element” refers to the entire structure because it is comprised of the mesh structure and casing body. Id. at 3:11–18. Thus, the entire structure, when inflated, is “generally flat and planar.”” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“portions of the casing body, when inflated against the first mesh portion, second mesh portion, and tie elements, “form a planar structure” when the casing body is inflated. This is evident from both the claim language and the written description of the ’065 patent. Limitation [1e] of claim 1 recites that in the inflated condition, “said portions of the casing body” are “inflated against said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements.” We understand “said portions of the casing body” to refer to all of the portions of the casing body. Likewise, “said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements” refers to the entire mesh structure recited in limitation [1a]. Thus, this limitation requires all of the casing-body portions to inflate against the entire mesh structure to form the “planar structure.” This reading is consistent with the Specification. The Specification teaches that “[t]he first mesh portion and the second mesh portion together with the tie elements determine with the casing body the final shape of the inflatable element,” which “can reach a generally flat and planar final shape.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–23; see also id. at 4:59–5:3 (teaching that the casing body inflated within the mesh structure results in a “globally planar structure”). Here, “inflatable element” refers to the entire structure because it is comprised of the mesh structure and casing body. Id. at 3:11–18. Thus, the entire structure, when inflated, is “generally flat and planar.”” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,012,065
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.