• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00118 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable because the Petition did not establish the claimed adjacent pad groups, common ESD bus, or pad-to-pad bonding wires.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “would have had a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering or similar discipline, and 2–3 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, analyzing, designing, or teaching) ICs, or equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience (e.g., an advanced degree may replace some of the professional experience and vice versa). This POSITA would have been aware of and generally knowledgeable about IC design, layout, manufacturing, packaging, and ESD protection. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–33). Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of a” POSITA “for purposes of this IPR.” PO Resp. 10. In the Institution Decision, we adopted the assessment offered by Petitioner. Dec. 7. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’164 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Based on our review of the complete trial record and the arguments raised by the parties, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ dispute. Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “includes segmented ground rails 350, 355. . . . The package substrate 310 includes a package common ground rail 360, and the segmented SoC ground rails 350, 355 are independently connected to the package common ground rail 360 via separate connections 370, 375 respectively.”). As set forth above, Dr. Foty describes the three ground lines in Saint Figure 7-7 as “segmented rails” when discussing the combination of Saint and Haralabidis, thus equating the three ground lines in Saint Figure 7-7 with Haralabidis’ segmented ground rail. Ex. 1003 ¶ 368. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Foty, however, adequately addresses how or why a POSITA would have understood that the three separate grounds lines in Saint Figure 7-7 were “segmented rails” like the segments of the single ground line described in Haralabidis. In contrast, Dr. Khatri credibly testifies: Haralabidis teaches the use of a “common ground rail” to connect “segmented ground rails.” Haralabidis, 3:9–22, 3:34– 40, 3:65–4:12. A POSITA would understand “segmented ground rails” to refer to a single ground signal that has been “segmented.” That is fundamentally different from the design of Saint’s Figure 7-7 that Dr. Foty relies on, which uses three different ground signals, GND1, GND2, and GND3—not a single ground signal that has been “segmented.” Because of that, a POSITA would not have been motivated to change the Figure 7-7 design completely to connect three separate signals (GND1, GND2, and GND3) together as Dr. Foty proposes. Ex. 1003 ¶ 368. Indeed, for these reasons, a POSITA would have understood Haralabidis’ teachings of a “common ground rail” are inapplicable to Saint’s Figure 7-7. Ex. 2010 ¶ 129. Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Foty’s testimony with respect to the modification of Saint Figure 7-7 leave an analytical gap that does not apprise us of why a POSITA would have modified Saint Figure 7-7 to include a common ESD bus as described in Haralabidis.” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “For these reasons, we find that Yoshinaga’s statement that “[r]eference potential pads are not shown to simplify the drawing” indicates that reference potential pads are not depicted in Yoshinaga Figure 6, and determine that Yoshinaga Figure 6 does not disclose “a plurality of pad groups, adjacent and connected to the plurality of ESD buses” as recited in claim 6. Petitioner also argues that a POSITA would have understood that power supply pads 3, 4, and 58 in Yoshinaga “could just as readily be used as reference pads” and it would have been obvious “to use the pads immediately next to the saved areas as reference pads (e.g., pads 5 and 6) as pad assignments were left to the designer’s discretion.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 137–139). Petitioner asserts that “selecting which pads to use for ground, power signals, etc. is a design choice that depends on factors like chip size, the number of I/O signals, and the number of pads available.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 137–139). Petitioner states that such discretion would be to preserve Yoshinaga’s saved area for other circuitry as taught by Saint. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 137–139; Pet. 19–23 (§ IX.A)). Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Foty adequately explain, however, why a POSITA would have made this specific design choice, namely, replacing power supply pads 3, 4, and 58 with reference pads. Pet. 31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 137–139; see also Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Merely stating that a particular placement of an element is a design choice does not make it obvious.” (quoting Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., 636 Fed. Appx. 575, 578 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Petitioner offers the general proposition that pad assignments are left to the designer’s discretion, but this does not provide a reason why a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Yoshinaga Figure 6 as proposed. Pet. 31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 137–139. We have determined that Yoshinaga does not show (rather than does not label) reference pads. Because all of Yoshinaga’s illustrated pads are power supply pads, Petitioner’s proposed reassignment of pads would not be a simple matter of rearrangement of an existing mixture of power supply and reference pads, but require that reference pads be imported from elsewhere, and power supply pads be moved to some unspecified location. Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Foty’s testimony with respect to the modification of Yoshinaga Figure 6 leave an analytical gap that does not apprise us of why a POSITA would have modified Yoshinaga Figure 6 to include reference pads in the place of power supply pads 3, 4, and 58. We agree with Patent Owner that none of Petitioner’s rationales” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,879,164 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,879,164
• Resmed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 5, 2026 · IPR2025-00160 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–13, 15–18, and 20–31 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed Toge-Kumar combination did not establish the claimed remote internet site hosted on a server.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner filed a Response. Paper 23 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 27 (“Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply. Paper 35 (“Sur-reply”). Additionally, during trial, Patent Owner filed an authorized Motion to Terminate, alleging that Petitioner failed to name a real party in interest (namely, Petitioner’s corporate parent, Resmed Inc.). Paper 37. Petitioner filed an opposition. Paper 38. Patent Owner filed a reply. Paper 39. We denied the Motion to Terminate. Paper 44.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties. 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))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability. C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level). D. Summary of the Asserted Prior Art” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “summarized above, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have implemented Toge’s physician-side computer as a web server using a “localhost” architecture as proposed by Petitioner because such a configuration cannot communicate with external devices over the public internet, a deficiency that directly contradicts Petitioner’s stated motivations for the combination of permitting broad data access. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Chatterjee, expressly acknowledged in his Reply Declaration that when a client and server reside on the same machine, the communications between them do not traverse the internet. Ex. 1069 ¶ 8. Specifically, Dr. Chatterjee cited the Microsoft Computer Dictionary’s definition of “localhost” as “[t]he name that is used to represent the same computer on which a TCP/IP message originates,” noting that “[a]n IP packet sent to localhost has the IP address 127.0.0.1 and does not actually go out to the Internet.” Id. (citing Ex. 1070, 316). Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed configuration of placing both the client and web server on Toge’s physician-side computer would create a closed loop of communication that does not reach the broader network. Id. As noted by Patent Owner, “[i]f ‘the physician-side computer and the web server are on one machine,’ the local web server would not communicate with other devices via the Internet.” Sur-Reply, 3–4 (comparing Ex. 1069 ¶ 19 with id. at ¶ 8). Thus, the consequence of Petitioner’s proposed Toge-Kumar configuration is that other devices in the system, such as the PAP device that generates the treatment data and any remote client devices that might need to access that data, would be unable to send data to or retrieve data from the localhost web server. Patent Owner persuasively argues, supported by evidence of record, that under Petitioner’s proposed configuration, “the PAP device could not send data thereto nor could other clients receive data therefrom, as only the local client browser can exchange data.” Id. (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 8); see Ex. 2003, 4 (one-tier architecture “is not suitable for a web application” because “it can only access data available in a single computer or server” and therefore “is not suitable for a web application.”); Ex. 2022, 3 (Unlike more advanced multi-tier systems, a one-tier architecture “cannot transmit information from one client machine to another.”); Ex. 2020, 4 (While “the client process and server process can be on the same computer,” this architecture “is rarely used today” precisely because it cannot “take advantage of the distributed computing environment.”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,786,680 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,786,680
• Resmed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00158 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Orbach did not disclose a single computer or processor performing all claimed remote analysis, output, and display functions.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “After considering all of the arguments and evidence presented on the full trial record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6, 8–17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Ciulla and Orbach. We find that the deficiencies in Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim limitations [1.d], [1.f], and [1.g] are dispositive and we address the parties’ arguments concerning those limitations below.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Pet. 8. Patent Owner agrees to apply Petitioner’s proposed definition of POSITA. PO Resp. 4. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSITA because the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 11

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

    “the Board need not construe any terms. Pet. 9. Patent Owner agrees. PO Resp. 4. We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties. 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))). Nevertheless, in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability below, we discuss the scope of certain claim terms, e.g., “the computer” and “the processor.” C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, to show obviousness, Petitioner must show in Orbach that either (a) remote server 140’s output to viewing station 150 constitutes “display” within the meaning of the claim, or (b) viewing station 150 receives data “over cell towers” notwithstanding the intervening server. We determine that Petitioner has failed to do so on this record. Our analysis follows.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 11,690,512 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,690,512
• Stingray Group Inc. / Stingray Music USA, Inc. v. Edwin A. Hernandez-MondragonNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 29, 2026 · IPR2025-00349 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Avellan did not disclose the claimed sequence of screen captures used to assemble a media stream.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Patent Owner submits a similar definition and does not dispute the Petition’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 22. No express finding is necessary. The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. Any perceived difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA does not change our analysis or conclusions.” slip op. at 5

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

    “on ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 14–15; PO Resp. 22. We determine that construction of claim terms is not necessary to resolve the disputes raised by the parties in this proceeding.” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “c. Analysis “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Avellan does not anticipate claim 1 because it does not assemble a media stream of multimedia items using the recited screen captures. See PO Resp. 26–29. We agree with Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires more than transmitting individual media items. Sur-reply 21. To the extent that Avellan captures images, those images do not meet the claimed requirements for a “temporal sequence of screen captures” in the independent claims, which must (1) be of the web page rendered by a browser, (2) “define all the content of the web page at a given time,” (3) “illustrate a dynamic change of at least a portion of the content over time” when two of them are compared, and (4) used to assemble “the at least one media stream.” Rather, the record better supports Patent Owner’s argument that Avellan transmits the multimedia items separate from any media stream assembled from screen captures. PO Resp. 26–29; Sur-reply 21.” slip op. at 8

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

    “All other challenged claims require the “generating” and “assembling” operations because they depend from claims 1, 12, or 17. Petitioner does not allege that the additional references—Durante, Ma, Suzuki, Wanamaker, Heikens, Matthews, or Wilsher—teach or suggest the “temporal sequence of screen captures” recited in claim 1. Rather, Petitioner’s reasoning in the challenges to the dependent claims pertaining to the screen captures mirror the rationale presented in the independent claim. See, e.g., Pet. 25 (arguing that Avellan’s screen captures correspond to the video content in the challenge to claim 2), 26–27 (arguing that Avellan obtains screen captures from a playback of a video on the webpage in the challenge to claim 4). Petitioner’s argument that Avellan teaches or suggests these operations in the grounds based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 depend on the reasoning and insufficiently supported characterizations of Avellan in the challenges based on 35 U.S.C. § 102, as discussed above. See Pet. 40–60. grounds based on anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or teaches or suggests these operations in the grounds based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that any challenged claim is unpatentable as anticipated by Avellan or obvious over any of the combinations of Avellan and the other cited references.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,123,074 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,123,074
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 27, 2026 · IPR2022-01093 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand

  Claims 13 and 14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish that the received card information defines the memory location for the biometric signature.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed our Original Decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. ASSA Abloy AB, No. 2024-1492, 2025 WL 3134960, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), Paper 43. The Federal Circuit also noted that in light of the affirmance of our decision in another proceeding, IPR2022- 00600, challenging the same patent, the “errors the Board made in this appeal only extends to claims 3–18, which were not at issue in the other appeal.” Id. at *3 n 1. Therefore, in this proceeding, only challenged claims 13 and 14 remain. At the request of the parties, we permitted additional briefing addressing the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 44. Petitioner filed an opening brief (Paper 51 (“Pet. Remand Br.”)), and Patent Owner filed an opening brief (Paper 52 (“PO Remand Br.”)). Both parties also filed responsive briefs. Paper 54 (“Pet. Responsive Br.”); Paper 55 (“PO Responsive Br.”). This is a Final Written Decision on Remand addressing the patentability of the remaining challenged claims 13 and 14. To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “offers nothing to suggest that its card information ‘tells you’ where to store the fingerprint data.” ASSA ABLOY AB, 2025 WL 3134960 at *3. Reversing our determinations as to Hsu, the Court found that the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, “merely confirms the associative link between the card information and the biometric data. Still missing is any non-conclusory testimony that Hsu’s card information determines the memory location of the biometric data.” Id. at 8. Therefore, on remand, a central question is whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Tsukamura cures this deficiency. Petitioner has not done so. In the Petition, Petitioner relies on Tsukamura for teaching a specific location for storing fingerprint data. See Pet. 75 (stating that “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory”). Petitioner argues that “[t]hus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., ‘a memory location is specified by the card information.’” Id. at 75–76 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 215). In support, Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, testifies that “[i]f the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. However, considering the Federal Circuit’s decision, we determine such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039
• Resmed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00159 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 11–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because Petitioner did not establish the proposed remote internet site modification.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner filed an authorized Motion to Terminate, alleging that Petitioner failed to name a real party in interest (namely, Petitioner’s corporate parent, Resmed Inc.). Paper 37. Petitioner filed an opposition. Paper 38. Patent Owner filed a reply. Paper 39. We denied the Motion to Terminate. Paper 44.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.8 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes referred to herein as a POSITA) would have had: at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience working with diagnostic sensor systems and network data systems, such as networked PAP machines. Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 (Kirkness Decl.) ¶¶ 44–46); PO Resp. 7–8. Because the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We find it unnecessary to construe any claim term to resolve the issues in this case. 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 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “its burden of explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented a remote internet site in Toge’s system in the specific fashion Petitioner asserts (i.e., using the physician-side computer as a web server). As Patent Owner aptly states, the operative question is not merely whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Toge’s system to include a remote internet site, but whether the artisan would have modified Toge’s system to include a remote internet site “on a physician’s client computer” in accordance with the specific implementation argued by Petitioner. Sur-reply 2. On this critical question, Petitioner’s arguments are thin. Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Kirkness states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that one common way to access data transmitted over the internet, like the data from Toge’s wireless PAP device, is via a remote internet site.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 214. This assertion is reasonable. Indeed, prior art of record, such as Kumar, illustrates use of a central server that hosts a browser-based engine that can be accessed through web pages. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 (Kumar) Fig. 1A, ¶¶ 67, 72, 79, Pet. 10. Petitioner, however, elected to argue a specific implementation, namely that the skilled artisan would have modified Toge’s physician-side computer to operate as a web server. See, e.g., Pet. 15; Ex. 1005 (Chatterjee Decl.) ¶ 146; Reply 4. We find that this implementation is unsupported on this record. Petitioner has not pointed us to any disclosure in Toge, Burton, or Kumar (or any other prior art reference of record) that teaches or suggests “that a doctor’s computer should act a web server hosting sensitive patient data.” PO Resp. 9 (emphasis added). And critically, the Petition is silent as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected this implementation in particular. See, e.g., Pet. 49.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,375,921 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,375,921
• Google LLC / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00058 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12–14, and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish its challenges by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “IV. CONCLUSION Weighing the competing evidence and testimony, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Challenged Claims of the ’494 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 85

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibits 2034–2038, paragraphs 38 and” slip op. at 84

  Patent outcomesUS 9,158,494 not shown unpatentable
  Nonecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,158,494
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 8, 2026 · IPR2022-01094 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand

  Claims 3–12 and 15–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish that card information defined the memory location for storing the biometric signature.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “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) as “requiring [inter partes review] petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring a petition for inter partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon). That burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Consistent with our Original Decision, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’039 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of human-machine interfaces and device access security. Additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. Limitation 3(da) The issues on remand revolve essentially around limitation 3(da): Limitation 3(da) – storing the inputted biometric signature in a memory at a memory location defined by the provided card information; Ex. 1001, 12:61–63. Considering limitation 3(da) in our Original Decision, we explained that during an enrollment process the claimed “biometric signature,” e.g., a fingerprint, is not yet stored in the memory, and no memory location or address has been “defined,” as in “set” or “established,” in the memory for storing the fingerprint, until card information is received. Once the card information and fingerprint are received during enrollment, the card information provides data that establishes where, i.e., at what memory location or address, the system will store the fingerprint data. Original Decision 16.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable

    “Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a fingerprint database (44) and retrieve reference fingerprint data previously stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is set or established “at a memory location defined by the provided card information” as recited in claim limitation 3(da). Taking a close look at Petitioner’s testimonial evidence as to claim 3, we first note Mr. Lipoff testifies that Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. But, concomitant with the Federal Circuit’s point, such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC card information to define “as in ‘set’ or ‘establish[]’” a memory location, as our claim construction requires. See Section II.C.3.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2026 · IPR2024-01494 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 5, 6, and 9–20 not shown unpatentable over either Bowen and Soukup or Nagahama and Soukup under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’909 patent (2004), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” where “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Pet. 18–19. In the Decision on Institution, we agreed with and applied Petitioner’s proposed definition. Dec. on Inst. 9. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Both experts utilized Petitioner’s proposed definition. See Ex. 1024 ¶ 25; Ex. 2053 ¶¶ 29–30. Based on the full record developed during trial, including our review of the ’909 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’909 patent and cited prior art, we maintain the previously adopted definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “B. Claim Interpretation We interpret the claims of the challenged patent using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the [claims] in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such [claims] as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner argues that “the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. 15. We did not interpret any terms in the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 9–10. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Response. We conclude, based on the full trial record, that no term requires express interpretation to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove unpatentability of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” “‘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.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Trial Practice Guide § II.I, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trial-practice-guide (last updated Dec. 12, 2025). “While replies . . . can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply . . . that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.” Id. An indication that a new issue is improperly raised in a reply is where a petitioner submits “new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case” of unpatentability, such as a “newly raised rationale to combine the prior art references that was not expressed in the petition.” Id. That is the case here. Petitioner’s rationale in the Petition for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to lower Bowen’s 0.9 eV barrier height to 0.33 eV based on Soukup was that such an artisan would have expected lowering the barrier height to increase TMR. See Pet. 34–36. Faced with Dr. Bokor’s testimony on cross-examination, Petitioner presents a new theory in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have known what impact lowering the barrier height would have (increase TMR, decrease it, or have no impact at all), but would have expected it to change in some “uncertain” way, which is a “legally sufficient motivation” in Petitioner’s view. See Reply 6–10, 13–16, 23–25. In other words, “[r]ather than explaining how its original” position that lowering barrier height would increase TMR “was correct,” Petitioner articulated “an entirely new theory . . . absent from the [P]etition” after Patent Owner cross-examined Dr. Bokor and “pointed out the flaws of [Petitioner’s] position” in its Response. See Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Shifting arguments in this fashion is foreclosed by statute, [Federal Circuit] precedent, and Board guidelines.” Id.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Ultimately, the cross-examination testimony above is inconsistent with Dr. Bokor’s opinions in his declaration that, for example, “[i]t was understood to one of skill that lowering the barrier height to increase tunneling would have increased the TMR,” and “[o]ne of skill would have been motivated to adjust oxygen vacancy defects to improve TMR by lowering the barrier height.” See Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 176, 277 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 172 (“[O]ne of skill in the art would have been motivated to use [Soukup’s 0.33 eV] or similar height in an MgO MTJ to improve tunneling and hence TMR in Bowen.”). Accordingly, we do not find Dr. Bokor’s declaration testimony regarding a motivation to lower Bowen’s barrier height credible. It is Petitioner’s burden to provide a reasoned, evidence-supported explanation for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to lower Bowen’s 0.9 eV barrier height to 0.33 eV as disclosed in Soukup. See NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383; Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380; TriVascular, 812 F.3d at 1066. Petitioner’s reasoning in the Petition that lowering the barrier height (by introducing oxygen defects) would increase TMR is unsupported by evidence.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,968,909 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,968,909
• CMS Cepcor Ltd. / CMS Cepcor Americas LLC v. Sandvik Intellectual Property ABNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01381 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable because Polinski and Piepho do not teach the claimed tapered region extending from the shaft’s second end, and Petitioner did not establish adequate motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) relating to the ’090 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less/different formal education and more work experience.” Id. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not object to the defined level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Pet. 3). appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’090 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “challenge, the crux of the parties’ dispute revolves around the limitation in claim 1 of “an axial region of the shaft body extending from the second end and being tapered relative to a longitudinal axis of the shaft.” We agree with for the tapered axial region and that starting point would be the extremity of the shaft not an undefined point in the “end region.” Because Patent Owner proposes a construction of “end” that would have general application to all claim terms including the first end of the shaft, the second end of the shaft, and the sleeve end, and that construction has no bearing on the issues we address below, we do not reach Patent Owner’s proposed general construction of “end” by itself. We determine that no other claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. 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’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 17

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

    “As discussed above in our claim construction analysis, apart from the issue of the general construction of “end,” we determine that this limitation uppermost extremity of the shaft. Because neither Polinski nor Piepho disclose a tapered axial region starting at the uppermost extremity of the shaft, we find that Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Polinksi and Piepho discloses this limitation.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “This paragraph discusses “accurate alignment” in connection with joint 21, not tapered end 25. Ex. 1018, 3:23–35. The paragraph subsequently states that both joint 21 and end 25 are tapered but that shaft end 25 may alternatively be cylindrical. Id. We also find nothing in this paragraph supporting Petitioner’s assertion that alignment “is notoriously more difficult with purely cylindrical shafting” (Pet. 16–17). In order to support its position, Petitioner improperly conflates separate statements in this paragraph of Piepho, i.e., joint 21 provides accurate alignment, joint 21 is tapered, and end 25 is tapered. Petitioner makes an unsupported logical leap that the result of these three statements is that tapered end 25 provides accurate alignment. However, Petitioner fails to reconcile this argument with the final sentence in this paragraph that shaft end 25 may also be cylindrical as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 “is an external view of another embodiment of” Piepho’s shaft. Ex. 1018, 2:49–50. In Figure 4, joint 21 has the same tapered configuration as shown in Figure 3 but end 25 is not tapered. Based on our review of Piepho’s Figures 3 and 4, we find that Piepho’s reference to “accurate alignment” refers to joint 21 and not to tapered end 25 as Petitioner alleges. Because Mr. Smith’s testimony (Ex. 1002, 59) essentially parrots the Petition on this point and is inconsistent with our finding, his testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to would teach this claim limitation.8 Because Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Polinski and Piepho teaches limitation 1b or an adequate motivation to combine, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is obvious over Polinski, Piepho, and Harless.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,014,090 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,014,090

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.