• Apple Inc. v. THL Holding Company, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00398 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 over Kalliola and Vauclair; claims 2, 3, and 6 with Kalayjian; claim 5 with Turunen; and claim 9 with Trimble.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner agrees with the qualifications proposed by Petitioner: “this description reasonably represents the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 Patent, as well as the prior art cited in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 13–14 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 22). For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’680 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that, based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction in the parallel litigation, we construe “pairing signal” as “[p]rocessor signal to initiate a wireless device pairing sequence.” Pet. 6 (quoting Ex. 1009, 15–168). In Response, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s interpretation of this term. PO Resp. 14. We adopt the parties’ proposed construction for this term. We determine that we need not construe any other claim terms. 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)).” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Second, Petitioner demonstrates that the combination of Kalliola and Vauclair teaches claim limitations 1(d)(iv) and 1(d)(v). As discussed and cited to above, the Petition identifies that, with Kalliola’s touch screen as the claimed “touch screen,” Kalliola’s processor presents a graphical user interface via its touch screen as set forth for limitation 1(c) and 1(d)(ii), and Kalliola’s processor operates in conjunction with its graphical user interface to perform claimed steps as set forth for limitation 1(d)(iii). See Pet. 20–29. We agree that the assertions are supported by Kalliola’s disclosure of a touch screen with a graphical user interface presented thereon, where “tactile elements” “allow the user . . . to enter data . . . into the device.” See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 26, 40, 42, 44, 51, 71, Figs. 3, 5. Petitioner also asserts, and we agree, that Kalliola teaches the use of Bluetooth-enabled emitters in remote devices that communicate with its wireless communication device with a signal emitter. Pet. 29–31 (citing Ex. 104 ¶¶ 9, 71, 73–75, 77, 107, Fig. 5). Petitioner contends, and we agree, that Vauclair provides additional specificity regarding the pairing process between two devices with its disclosures of a pairing process between devices using protocols that include Bluetooth, wherein a user can select a pairing option from a menu on a display. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 22, 24, 28, 30, 34–36, 49, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 164–167). Petitioner argues, and we agree, that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Kalliola to use its processor to present “a pairing menu to enable a user to initiate a Bluetooth pairing process between the WCD and the signal emitter by selecting a pairing option via the WCD’s touchscreen,” with Vauclair teaching at least the selection of a pairing option presented on its display, because the presented pairing menu on Kalliola’s touch screen would allow the user to pair the WCD with the user’s personal item signal emitters and would also allow the devices to recognize each other on subsequent connections. Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 172); see also Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 30, 36. Consequently, we also agree with Petitioner’s assertion that it would have been obvious to a person of skill of ordinary skill in the art that Kalliola’s graphical user interface on its touch screen would have generated signals corresponding to the user’s inputs at least to carry out designated functions, like the initiation of a pairing process, and “the signals generated by the GUI from interaction at the touchscreen would be sent to the WCD’s processor so that the processor can interpret the user’s inputs and take the appropriate action.” Pet. 35; see also Pet. Reply 2–7. Petitioner also asserts, and we agree, that generating processor signals in response to a user indication was a known mechanism for wireless devices, as were Bluetooth pairing and corresponding pairing menus, and there would be no change to the respective functions of Kalliola’s’ wireless communication devices and Vauclair’s pairing menu. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 175). The Petition argues, and we agree, that because Bluetooth pairing and pairing menus were conventional prior to time of the invention, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success configuring Kalliola’s wireless communication device. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 176); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–75 (Dr. Buehrer providing evidence on Bluetooth-connected devices and associated pairing). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence of rationale to combine Kalliola and Vauclair, a reasonable likelihood of success in the combination, and that the prior art teaches limitation 1(d)(iv). As to limitation 1(d)(v), we also agree with Petitioner that in response to a generation of a pairing signal as discussed in limitation 1(d)(iv), Vauclair discloses that wireless transceivers communicate a series of RF signals back and forth to pair the devices. Pet. 37–38. Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that, in combination, it would have been obvious to configure Kalliola’s Bluetooth transceiver with Vauclair’s teachings for the communication of RF signals to pair devices. Id. at 39. Petitioner contends, and we agree, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kalliola teaches that its wireless communication device performs Bluetooth communications with signal emitters, with the user selecting a desired signal emitter for locating objects, and that this pairing would also allow two Bluetooth devices to recognize each other on subsequent connections. Id. (Ex. 1003 ¶ 184). Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that applying Vauclair’s known technique of communicating RF signals to pair devices would improve Kalliola’s wireless communication device and yield the predictable result of Bluetooth-paired devices. Id. We also agree with Petitioner’s argument that this pairing was an understood and conventional feature of Bluetooth mobile communication devices, so there was a reasonable expectation of success in the combination. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 186); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72 (Dr. Buehrer providing evidence on Bluetooth-connected devices). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence of rationale to combine Kalliola and Vauclair, reasonable likelihood of success in the combination, and that the prior art teaches limitation 1(d)(v).” slip op. at 40

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Ex. 1003 ¶ 172. The Petition also asserts that, in the combination, there would be no change to the respective functions of either Kalliola’s WCD or Vauclair’s pairing menu. Pet. 36. Thus, the Petition relies on Kalliola’s processor, and its touchscreen, and graphical user interface with Vauclair’s teachings for the pairing menu displayed, wherein pairing signals are generated by Kalliola’s graphical user interface by interaction with the screen. As we discuss further below, Petitioner includes assertions that Vauclair itself teaches that the pairing signal is generated by its graphical user interface. See id. at 33, 37. The Petition, however, also relies on the combination of Kalliola and Vauclair to teach generating a pairing signal by Kalliola’s graphical user interface by interaction with its screen, as discussed above. Id. at 35. Accordingly, it is not necessary to reach the issue of whether Vauclair alone teaches that its graphical user interface generates the pairing signal. Additionally, we do not find that Petitioner’s further arguments in its Reply concerning interaction with Kalliola’s wireless communication device through its graphical user interface were impermissibly presented in view of the Petition’s specific assertions on the teachings of the combination of Kalliola and Vauclair, as discussed above, and its reliance on user interaction with Kalliola’s graphical user interface for the teaching of generating the pairing signal. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 11,265,680 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,265,680
• Apple Inc. v. THL Holding Company, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00399 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–19 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 11–14 over Kalliola, Turunen, Oswald, Vauclair, and Kalayjian; claims 15–18 with Thorn; and claim 19 with Thorn and Sharp.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field and 2-4 years of experience with wireless ranging and positioning systems, wireless communication devices, and associated computer programming.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 35). “Patent Owner agrees that this description reasonably represents the level of ordinary skill required to understand and implement the teachings of the ’246 Patent, as well as the prior art cited in the Petition.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 22). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “device.” This term appears twice in claim 11, once in the phrase “an orientation sensor to detect rotation of the mobile communication device,” and once in the phrase “rotation of the mobile communication device detected by the orientation sensor.” Ex. 1001, 39:13–14, 39:36–38. Patent Owner argues that we should construe this term as limited to “detecting the rotation of the mobile communication device as a whole, not the movement of individual components.” PO Resp. 15–18. Petitioner disputes this, arguing that “rotation of the mobile communication device” should be construed not only to cover rotation of the device as a whole but also should “encompass[] any rotation of the mobile communication device relative to any object, including itself,” which would extend to rotation of “any component of the device.” Reply 4–5. We need not resolve this dispute to determine the outcome of Petitioner’s asserted challenges to the ’246 patent. As discussed more fully below, under either party’s proposed construction of “rotation of the mobile communication device,” Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. 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 9

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “On the record developed during trial, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Kalliola teaches “an orientation sensor to detect rotation of the mobile communication device,” where “rotation of the mobile communication device” includes rotation of the device as a whole, regardless of whether it also includes rotation of one portion of the device relative to another. Kalliola teaches “motion sensors integrated in WCD 100” that are “used to detect when WCD 100 is being moved,” as well as to detect “when user 110 moves WCD 100 too quickly for an accurate DoA estimation.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 84, 86. Although Patent Owner argues that Kalliola’s motion sensors do not detect rotation of the device, this is incorrect on the record as developed at trial. Kalliola teaches that the motion sensor may take “the form of a semiconductor gyroscope chip.” Id. ¶ 84. There is ample evidence that gyroscopes detect rotation. Ex. 1013, 38 (identifying as an “orientation sensor” a “[t]hree-axis gyro” and a “[d]ynamic [h]igh [r]ange [gyro]”); Ex. 1046, 49:18–20 (Dr. Feuerstein testifying that gyroscopes “can be used to detect angular velocity”); Ex. 1047 ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1051, 170; Ex. 1053, 9) (Dr. Buehrer testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that gyroscopes are well-known inertial sensors that specifically detect rotational motion”). Thus, by a preponderance of the evidence, Petitioner has shown that Kalliola teaches the “orientation sensor to detect rotation of the mobile communication device” of this limitation.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “whether Kalliola’s teaching of pausing and resuming its DoA estimation based on detected rotational motion, or Kalliola’s teaching of speeding up its DoA estimation based on detected rotational motion, amounts to determining direction based on rotation. Pet. 63–64; PO Resp. 25–27; Reply 24–27; Sur-Reply 11–14. On the record developed during trial, we are persuaded that the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Kalliola teaches determining direction based on rotation. First, Kalliola discloses “pausing a DoA estimation until the motion of the WCD is detected by the motion sensors,” then resuming “the updating of the DoA estimation” when motion is detected. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 14, 84. Second, Kalliola discloses a “correction or compensation mode” that is “employed when user 110 moves WCD 100 too quickly for an accurate DoA estimation,” with this “increase[d] speed of the DoA estimation” being triggered by the “[i]ncreased activity detected by motion sensors in WCD 100.” Id. ¶ 86. As discussed above with respect to limitation 11(d), the detected motion that triggers either of these modes can be rotational motion of the WCD detected by a gyroscope.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,350,246 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,350,246
• Jumio Corporation v. Facetec, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00107 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner

    “interest to this proceeding and is in privity with Petitioner and that the Petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because it served iProov 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, effective March 16, 2013. Because the challenged patent claims the benefit of applications filed after this date, the post-AIA version of §§ 102, 103 apply. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (60), (63). with a complaint for infringement of the ʼ606 patent more than one year before this Petition was filed. Prelim. Resp. 5–22. We addressed this same issue in our institution decision in IPR2025-00106. See IPR2025-00106, Paper 17 at 16–27. For the reasons we explained there, we do not agree that this Petition is not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. 315(b).” slip op. at 6

  • Other 314aDecided for petitioner

    “B. Discretionary Denial under § 314(a) Patent Owner argues the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in light of two co-pending district court cases. Prelim. Resp. 47–56. We addressed this same issue in our institution decision in IPR2025-00106. See IPR2025-00106, Paper 17 at 6–9. For the same reasons we explained there, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on the related district court cases.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “C. Discretionary Denial under § 325(d) Patent Owner argues we should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because Petitioner’s asserted references are the same or substantively as those the Office previously considered during prosecution. Prelim. Resp. 22–36. We addressed this same issue in our institution decision in IPR2025-00106. See IPR2025-00106, Paper 17 at 9–16. For the same reasons we explained there, we decline exercising our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “D. Claim Construction Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 5–6; see generally Prelim. Resp. We agree that no claim terms require express construction to determine whether to institute inter partes review. 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 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,157,606
• Jumio Corporation v. Facetec, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00109 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–24 and all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Derakhshani and Tanii.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “3. Institution of Inter Partes Review As discussed above, at this stage in the proceeding, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Derakhshani and Tanii teaches the limitations of claim 1 and a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Derakhshani and Tanii. Because we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Derakhshani, alone or combined with Tanii, we institute an inter partes review of all claims and all challenges raised in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 365 (2018) (stating 35 U.S.C. § 314 “simply requires [the Director] to decide whether the petitioner is likely to succeed on ‘at least 1’ claim. Once that single claim threshold is satisfied, it doesn’t matter whether the petitioner is likely to prevail on any additional claims; the Director need not even consider any other claim before instituting review.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 22

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner acknowledges that, in this IPR, “the time-bar is not implicated.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6. Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues that we should reach the RPI question here because other IPRs challenging different patents implicate the time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Id. at 5–6. Patent Owner’s request effectively asks us to extend the § 315(b) time bar to implicate patents not asserted in an applicable infringement complaint. We decline to do so. The plain language of § 315(b) does not extend the time bar to any patent other than the patent subject to the instant petition: An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent (emphasis added). Nor are we aware of any other authority which requires us to interpret § 315(b) to extend the time bar to patents other than the challenged one. Because Patent Owner admits this Petition challenging the ’910 Patent is not time barred, the treatment in SharkNinja controls. Accordingly, on this record, we need not consider whether iProov must be named as an RPI and decline to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “A. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner argues the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in light of two co-pending district court decision in IPR2025-00106. See IPR2025-00106, Paper 17 at 6–9. For the same reasons we explained there, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on the related district court cases.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “B. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner argues we should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because Petitioner’s asserted references are the same or substantively as those the Office previously considered during prosecution. Prelim. Resp. 18–33. We addressed this same issue in our institution decision in IPR2025-00106. See IPR2025-00106, Paper 17 at 9–16. For the same reasons we explained there, we decline exercising our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 9

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,874,910
• Innolux Corporation v. Phenix Longhorn LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00044 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition violated Rule 42.104(b)(3) and did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5, and 6 were unpatentable as obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not identified corresponding structure for performing the recited functions of “optimizing . . . gamma reference voltage levels using means for executing a predetermined algorithm according to a predetermined criteria and data sensed by . . . at least one sensor, wherein said means for executing said predetermined algorithm is separate from [a] display to achieve [a] desired gamma curve” as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Because Petitioner has not provided constructions, either rebutting the presumption that “means for executing” is a means-plus-function term, or identifying corresponding structure if it is a means-plus-function term, Petitioner has violated Rule 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) “would have had at least a bachelor of science degree in physics, electrical engineering, or the equivalent thereof and three (3) years of experience in circuit design or display technologies.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). According to Petitioner “[s]uch a POSA would have had knowledge of integrated circuits, gamma correction, and storage of gamma correction voltage values within memory, and would have understood how to search available literature for relevant publications.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition for the purposes of the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 12. This assessment is consistent with the ’788 Patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not identified corresponding structure for performing the recited functions of “optimizing . . . gamma reference voltage levels using means for executing a predetermined algorithm according to a predetermined criteria and data sensed by . . . at least one sensor, wherein said means for executing said predetermined algorithm is separate from [a] display to achieve [a] desired gamma curve” as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Because Petitioner has not provided constructions, either rebutting the presumption that “means for executing” is a means-plus-function term, or identifying corresponding structure if it is a means-plus-function term, Petitioner has violated Rule 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “and 5 recites “means for executing.” Ex. 1001, 7:36–40, 8:35–37. The use of the term “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments (Prelim. Resp. 36–39), the Petition does not address the presumption and, more specifically, the Petition does not provide any argument or evidence as to why the presumption is rebutted. Furthermore, even if we were to consider Petitioner’s newly presented argument that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of ‘means for executing a predetermined algorithm . . . ’ connotes a general-purpose processor, which is understood as structure sufficient to perform the function” (Pet. Reply 5), such argument is not persuasive as it is not supported by evidence earlier presented in the Petition or otherwise. Furthermore, even if the plain and ordinary meaning of means for executing a predetermined algorithm were a general-purpose processor, for a computer implemented means-plus-function term the corresponding structure must be the specific algorithm implemented by the processor as argued by Petitioner. Pet. Reply 6.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,557,788
• Jumio Corp. v. Facetec, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00108 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–24 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We need not consider whether iProov must be named as an RPI because Patent Owner does not allege that the failure to name iProov would implicate time bar, estoppel, or anything else material to this case. Our precedential authority, SharkNinja Operating LLC et al. v. iRobot Corp., controls this case, and explains that we need not determine whether a third party is an RPI to the Petitioner because “even if it were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” IPR2020-00734, Paper 11, 18–19 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential).” slip op. at 3

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “EXERCISE OF DISCRECTION A. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner argues the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in light of two co-pending district court cases. Prelim. Resp. 47–56. We addressed this same issue in our institution decision in IPR2025-00106. See IPR2025-00106, Paper 17 at 6–9. For the same reasons we explained there, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on the related district court cases.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “f) Conclusion – Claim 1 For the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Derakhshani and Tanii teaches the limitations of claim 1 and a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Derakhshani and Tanii. Our determination is not final and based only on the current record and arguments. At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 23

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,693,938
• Jumio Corp. v. Facetec, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00106 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining discretionary denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “appointment of new counsel for Petitioner and a motion to stay pending IPR(s) was denied without prejudice to being refiled once new counsel has appeared for Petitioner. Ex. 2030. In the Nevada litigation, iProov moved to stay the case pending IPR(s) in February 2025, but the court has not decided whether to grant the stay. Prelim. Resp. 57. We decline to speculate about how the district court might rule on any refiled motion to stay in the California litigation (or the pending motion to stay in the Nevada litigation). Thus, the first factor is neutral.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “framework, determining, first, “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). That first determination considers: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “contends indicate that iProov is a real party in interest to this proceeding. For example, Patent Owner points to the overlap in prior art references asserted in this Petition and the prior art references relied upon in the California and Nevada litigations. Prelim. Resp. 14–15, 18. Patent Owner also points to indemnity obligations between iProov and Petitioner. Id. at 15–16. And finally, Patent Owner emphasizes the benefit that iProov would get from this Petition. Id. at 17–18. Having reviewed these arguments and evidence of record we determine that, even in light of the issues raised by Patent Owner, Petitioner was not acting at the behest of iProov in filing this Petition and that iProov did not direct, control, or fund this Petition. Ex. 1049 ¶ 4 (counsel for Petitioner attesting that “iProov did not direct, control, or fund the Petitions. iProov did not work on the Petitions nor was it involved with the Petitions in any way. Petitioner never provided drafts of the IPR Petitions to iProov, and Petitioner never discussed the IPR Petitions or their substance with iProov.”) We, therefore, determine that iProov is not” slip op. at 18

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “between the purported ‘privy’ and the relevant other party is sufficiently close such that both should be bound by the trial outcome and related estoppels.” TPG 14–15. “[T]he rationale behind § 315(b)’s preclusion provision is to prevent successive challenges to a patent by those who previously have had the opportunity to make such challenges in the prior litigation.” WesternGeco, 889 F.3d at 1319. Therefore, “it is important to determine whether the petitioner and the prior litigant’s relationship—as it relates to the lawsuit—is sufficiently close that it can be fairly said that the petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of the patent in that lawsuit.” Id.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,776,471
• Google, LLC. v. Escapex IP LLCInstituted
  PTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00337 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–24 based on five § 103 grounds involving Fuloria and Andler with additional references.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, grant Petitioner’s request to institute inter partes review of the challenged claims on the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a similar field and three years of professional computer programming experience, including experience with networked media and databases, where additional education can substitute for experience or vice versa.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27– 31). The level of ordinary skill in the art is usually 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). Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, and thus, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner states that “to the extent that [the term “engagement”] requires construction, it should be construed as ‘an indication that a user should be distinguished with respect to the content over another user.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:53–55; Ex. 1002 ¶ 41). Based on the record before us, we see no need for express construction of any term for the purposes of this Decision. 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’”).” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenInstituted

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. Fuloria teaches “a mechanism for user to promote social networking objects to other users.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. Fuloria displays a news feed containing social media content items. Id. at code (57), ¶¶ 6, 27. Users in Fuloria may like a piece of content or “for a given price” the user may turn their like into a “super-like.” Id. ¶ 37. “The ‘super-liked’ story is priced and directed toward users in a similar manner as a social ad. In particular embodiments, sponsored story system 304 may also add a weight to the story to alter its direction toward users.” Id. ¶ 39. Petitioner argues that “[t]his functionality represents uncapped engagement . . . because Fuloria places no limitation on how many times a user can super-like a piece of content.” Pet. 24–25. Dr. Bederson supports Petitioner by noting that Fuloria does not “place any limitation on how many credits a user can spend to increase the reach of the content.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 76. Further, Dr. Bederson states that “[m]ultiple different users can also promote the same content item. By allowing users to promote or ‘super-like’ content which also increases engagement with that content by other users, Fuloria’s system also facilitat[es] uncapped engagement with that content.” Id. ¶77. We find these arguments to be persuasive. The ’687 patent states that “[s]o long as the user has sufficient resources, the user may promote herself or others with uncapped (i.e., unlimited) engagements, which may facilitate getting noticed by other users, whether with respect to a social media content item.” Ex. 1001, 2:6–10. Similarly, Fuloria allows users to expend their resources and to have the super-like displayed according to the amount paid for the super-like. Ex. 1004 ¶ 57 (“In particular embodiments, the advertisement system adjusts the display of the ‘super-liked’ story based upon social factors as well as the real-world value of the credits paid.”); see also id. ¶ 38 (“[T]he social networking system may deduct the credits based on a cost per impression (CPM), effective cost per impression (eCPM), cost per click (CPC), or cost per action (CPA) pricing model”). Fuloria teaches likes from any number of users which is argued to disclose the multiple users recited in the claim. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 82 (discussing Fuloria’s display of engagement by a user and pointing out that Figure 9A shows 1,884 likes); see also id. ¶ 87 (“Fuloria teaches that ‘super-likes’ are available to users in general (and thus to first, second, third, etc. users).”). As to the number of engagements displayed by the first, second, and” slip op. at 16

  Claim constructioncites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,474,687
• Innolux Corporation v. Phenix Longhorn LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00043 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–5 and 8–14, exercising § 314(a) discretion under Fintiv based on the Texas litigation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that its asserted trial date of February 17, 2026, would likely occur approximately 4 months before the latest date on which a final decision can be issued in this proceeding (June 12, 2026), and that is the metric we should use to determine the proximity of trial date to the projected statutory deadline. Accordingly, the facts underlying this factor weigh in favor of denial.” slip op. at 9

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,233,305
• Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00069 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that the prior art teaches creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, as claims 1–18 and 21–23 require.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification describes only fingerprint creation outside the virtual machine monitor because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. See Sur-reply 1– 2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner does not contest that Capalik’s fingerprint generation occurs outside the components that Petitioner identifies as the claimed virtual machine monitor. Reply 1–3; see Pet. 18–23 (mapping Capalik’s hypervisor kernel 516 to the claimed virtual machine monitor); id. at 30–31 (mapping Capalik’s processing module 508 and signature generation engine 530 to the claimed fingerprint creation); see also Prelim. Resp. 21–23 (explaining Petitioner’s mapping). Instead, Petitioner asserts that the at-issue claim language—“at the virtual machine monitor”—does not require “that each of the subsequently recited steps must be performed by or in the [virtual machine monitor],” but instead only requires “that the fingerprint is generated by the same decoy system that contains the [virtual machine monitor].” Reply 2. Petitioner argues that the intrinsic record supports its position because “[n]owhere in the ’697 Patent is there any teaching or suggestion that a [virtual machine monitor] creates a fingerprint/signature indicative of attack activity,” and instead, “[t]he ’697 Patent teaches that its signature generation engine is separate from the [virtual machine monitor].” Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:12–19). In addition, Petitioner asserts that requiring fingerprint creation at the virtual machine monitor “directly” slip op. at 8

  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “D. Statutory Disclaimer and Remaining Challenged Claims The Petition challenges claims 1–23. Pet. 10. However, because Patent Owner disclaimed claims 19 and 20 (Ex. 2010), the remaining challenged claims are 1–18 and 21–23. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (2020) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”). Of the remaining challenged claims, only claim 1 is independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,106,697

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.