- Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Eyesmatch Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00297 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not establish the claimed distance-based variation in the rate of image-processing steps.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Putting aside the controversy over alleged impropriety and sandbagging in connection with the District Court’s Order, which we address infra in connection with Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike, we find the District Court’s “mirror-mimicking” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:46–51, 15:41–47). Petitioner does not dispute that the ’109 patent discloses these aspects of “mirror-mimicking,” or even that the District Court’s claim construction is incorrect. Instead, Petitioner contends that “[t]he Board need not construe ‘mirror mimicking’ [beyond plain meaning] since the prior art expressly discloses mimicking a mirror.” Pet. Reply 6. Further. Petitioner characterizes the claim construction order as “a report and recommendation” by a magistrate judge that “the district court judge has not evaluated or adopted.” Id. at 6 n.2.9 We address infra whether the prior art “expressly” discloses “mirror- mimicking” as construed by the District Court. We, however, disagree with Petitioner that we should not construe this term. Given the controversy over whether Petitioner has argued for a different construction in the District Court, we cannot agree that an explicit construction of “mirror-mimicking” is an unnecessary step toward resolving this controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at 803. We therefore adopt the District Court’s construction for “mirror-” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have combined these references “to reduce distortion and provide a realistic mirror image.” Pet. 14–17; Haram Decl. ¶¶ 110–117. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that by specifically disclosing “flipping” the image, Rosenberg is discouraging or teaching away from performing other transformations to achieve its objective of “replicat[ing] the performance of a standard household mirror.” See PO Resp. 32–33 (Patent Owner asserting lack of motivation to combine the references). A reference may be said to “teach away” “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Galderma Lab'ys, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed. Id. Further, when conducting an obviousness analysis, the Board must consider a prior art reference “not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We are not convinced that the references before us “teach away” from performing the other transformations.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,109 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,109 - Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Eyesmatch Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00856 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations did not teach or suggest varying the rate of the claimed image-processing steps according to user distance.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 62– 63). For this Decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.7” slip op. at 13
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Putting aside the controversy over alleged impropriety and sandbagging in connection with the District Court’s Order, which we address infra in connection with Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike, we find the District Court’s “mirror-mimicking” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:46–51, 15:41–47). Petitioner does not dispute that the ’109 patent discloses these aspects of “mirror-mimicking,” or even that the District Court’s claim construction is incorrect. Instead, Petitioner contends that “[t]he Board need not construe ‘mirror mimicking’ [beyond plain meaning] since the prior art expressly discloses mimicking a mirror.” Pet. Reply 6. Further. Petitioner characterizes the claim construction order as “a report and recommendation” by a magistrate judge that “the district court judge has not evaluated or adopted.” Id. at 6 n.2.9 We address infra whether the prior art “expressly” discloses “mirror- mimicking” as construed by the District Court. We, however, disagree with Petitioner that we should not construe this term. Given the controversy over whether Petitioner has argued for a different construction in the District Court, we cannot agree that an explicit construction of “mirror-mimicking” is an unnecessary step toward resolving this controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at 803. We therefore adopt the District Court’s construction for “mirror-” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have combined these references “to reduce distortion and provide a realistic mirror image.” Pet. 14–17; Haram Decl. ¶¶ 110–117. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that by specifically disclosing “flipping” the image, Rosenberg is discouraging or teaching away from performing other transformations to achieve its objective of “replicat[ing] the performance of a standard household mirror.” See PO Resp. 32–33 (Patent Owner asserting lack of motivation to combine the references). A reference may be said to “teach away” “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Galderma Lab'ys, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed. Id. Further, when conducting an obviousness analysis, the Board must consider a prior art reference “not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We are not convinced that the references before us “teach away” from performing the other transformations.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that step 1(h) is taught or suggested by the references cited by Petitioner or the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Karam. We agree, instead, with Patent Owner’s argument that “a [person of ordinary skill] would regard the disclosures in Rosenberg relating to proximity detection to be in connection with turning on or off various display modes and not in connection with varying the rate of one or more steps that are performed to transform a series of captured images of a user.” PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex.1005, ¶¶ 25, 32, 56, 69, 114). This distinction was explored during the final hearing. Petitioner’s counsel confirmed that in Rosenberg’s mirror mode, the rate of performing the processing steps does not vary: [THE BOARD]: It’s true that when the -- when Rosenberg is acting in the mirror mode, it’s always at the same rate, correct? It’s always performing those three processing steps at the same rate? [COUNSEL]: Correct. Hearing Tr. 34:13–16. We conclude that Rosenberg fails to disclose or suggest step 1(h) for the reasons given by Patent Owner and summarized above. We agree with Patent Owner’s analysis that in Rosenberg, when the mirror is off the processing steps are not performed, and when the mirror is on, the steps are performed “at an invariant rate.” PO Sur-reply 18–19.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,109 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,109 - PTAB · Oct 30, 2025 · IPR2025-00817 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Boerjes-Geng and Boerjes-Geng-Babayoff obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On this record, we determine that Petitioner has developed this ground sufficiently to meet the reasonable likelihood standard for institution. Having determined that Petitioner has met its burden as to its Ground 2 arguments, and because the Board must institute on all grounds or none, SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 364–65 (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a), we institute trial in on all grounds presented in this proceeding. Nevertheless, we address the additional grounds below.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–30). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be 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 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties indicate that in the co-pending litigation in the District Court for the Western District of Texas (see supra Section I.B), the Court provided preliminary constructions of two specific claim limitations. Pet. 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner adds that “district court subsequently adopted these constructions in its final claim construction order.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001). We determine that the constructed limitations do not impact the analysis below, but nonetheless, we adopt this those constructions for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“identify areas that need replacing, such as ‘a margin line’ to be removed, ‘areas of poor margin preparation,’ and ‘holes or areas of incomplete scan[s],’” and that the user can identify regions of a prepared tooth surface requiring additional preparations and “supplemental scanning” (Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 189, 193, 196)), Boerjes is silent with respect to replacing at least a portion of the removed surface portion of the model using the received second scan data of the patient’s teeth, per claim 1. Boerjes certainly contemplates the re-scanning of the dentition, but does not assert partial insertion of new data into an existing 3D model. Even under the “comprising” language of claim 1, for example, the complete replacement of a 3D model cannot teach or suggest “replacing at least a portion of the removed surface portion” without repudiating the language of the claim by making a portion be the entire model. Even if, as Petitioner asserts, “removing portions of a virtual model has been a well-known and routine technique in 3D modeling,” and the “process of replacing a user-identified portion would have been well within the skills of a POSITA” (Pet. 35), the disclosure of Boerjes does not teach or suggest such processes. Although Boerjes allows for the possibility that portions of a model can be identified as needing replacement or supplementation, it does not disclose the partial replacement required by the instant, independent claims. Boerjes’s actual disclosure details that supplemental scanning is used to compensate for an inadequate scan, but not disclosed to be used to stitch together before-and-after models that have undergone an intervening physical change. slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,791,936 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00828 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–14 are unpatentable as obvious over the Rogers-based combinations with Rosenberg, Rekimoto, and, for claims 9–14, Miyazawa.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“13 The Court was very critical of Dr. Wobbrock’s testimony in the related district court case. See generally Ex. 1026 (September 18, 2025 Order). With regard to the ’086 patent, the Court found that Dr. Wobbrock’s testimony was not based on any record evidence (id. at 7, 9), arbitrary (id.), contrary to the evidence (id. at 7–8), unjustified (id. at 8), ipse dixit (id. at 9), conclusory (three times) (id.), insufficient to support a jury verdict (three times) (id. at 9, 27), untethered from the Specification (three times) (id. at 28, 30, 31), inconsistent (id. at 29), insufficient to support his opinion (id. at 29–30), unsupported (id. at 30), and not to be credited by a reasonable jury (id. at 31). We have considered this criticism of Dr. Wobbrock’s testimony in view of the September 16, 2025, Memorandum to the Members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on the subject of “PTAB consideration of prior findings of fact and conclusions of law” (available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Memo_re_prior_finding s_of_fact_and_conclusions_of_law_9_16_25.pdf?utm_campaign=subscripti oncenter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=g ovdelivery&utm_term=) and in light of the case law (see, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co., 337 U.S. 656, 659 (1949) (“[I]n the determination of litigated facts, the testimony of one who has been found unreliable as to one issue may properly be accorded little weight as to the next.”). We have similarly found Dr. Wobbrock’s testimony to be contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims, untethered from the Specification, unsupported by the evidence, inconsistent, arbitrary, and conclusory. We accord the testimony of Dr. Wobbrock little or no weight. We view the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Nielson, as more credible and persuasive as it tracks more closely with the ’086 patent and the cited art. EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, 137 F.4th 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Parms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597, 589 (1993) (“The Supreme Court has explained ‘that the trial judge plays a “gatekeeping role,’” ‘through which it must “ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.’”)).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“with touch interfaces.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 76–77). Although there are minor differences in these definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art, the parties agree that this issue is not disputed. Tr. 11:24–26 (Petitioner’s counsel); 43:16–22 (Patent Owner’s counsel indicating agreement with Petitioner’s definition); see also Pet. Reply 1 (“The experts agree on the definition of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’).” Determining the level of ordinary skill in the art involves various factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The prior art of record also reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is not disputed and is consistent with the ’086 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We find no support in the language of claim 1 for construing the “first registering mode” and the “second registering mode” as “operating modes,” or as “different operational states,” or “sub-operating modes of the ‘said registering mode’” as contended by Patent Owner. There is no express statement in claim 1 that the “first registering mode” and the “second registering mode” are “operating modes,” or are “different operational states,” or are “sub-operating modes of the ‘said registering mode.’” The language of claim 1 is clear that the only two “operating modes” explicitly recited in claim 1 are the “identification mode” and the “registration mode.” Claim 1 recites that these two “modes” are “operating modes,” but does not recite that the “first registering mode” and the “second registering mode” are “operating modes.” The language of claim 1 cannot be read to include the requirements that the “first registering mode” and the “second registering mode” are “operating modes,” or are “different operational states,” or are “sub-operating modes of the ‘said registering mode.’” Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the language of limitation 1c that specifically refers to the “registering mode” as an “operating mode” and the language of limitation 1f that refers to the “first registering mode” and the “second registering mode” as “mode[s] for inputting input information” that are “provided in said registering mode” contradicts Patent Owner’s proposed construction that would require the “first” and “second registering mode[s]” to be “different operational states.” The plain and ordinary meaning of the language of claim 1 provides that the “first registering mode” and the “second registering mode” are “mode[s] for inputting input information” that are “provided in said registering mode” which is one of the two delineated “operating modes.” Both “first” and “second” “registering mode[s]” ”for inputting input information” are recited as “provided in said registering mode,” a single “operating mode.”17” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Both references are directed to allowing users to input information via touchsurface technology and are analogous art to the ’086 patent. . . . [A] POSITA would have found Rogers and Rosenberg to be compatible because of the technical similarity of their teachings, and a POSITA would have further recognized that Rosenberg’s finger orientation disclosures, applied to Rogers’ graphical passcode disclosures, would facilitate a “natural and intuitive” means of implementing the teachings of Rogers. A POSITA therefore would have been motivated to look to Rosenberg to improve Rogers, and vice-versa. . . . A POSITA . . . would have considered the disclosures in Rosenberg and been motivated to modify Rogers’ “large fingertip and a small stylus tip” example so that it instead used the “natural and intuitive” finger pad versus finger end distinction discussed in Rosenberg. A POSITA would have found this modification to be a simple substitution of elements well known in the art and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the benefits disclosed in Rosenberg by making the modification, which involved only routine skill. . . . [A]dding finger end and finger pad touch detection to Rogers would involve no more than applying a known technique (i.e., finger end and finger pad touch detection/distinction as taught by Rosenberg) to a known device ready for improvement (Rogers’ apparatus having “large fingertip and a small stylus tip” capabilities) to yield predictable results (simple to use touch screen interface with multipoint targeting and multi-finger gesturing). . . . It also would have been obvious to combine Rogers with Rosenberg because both references disclose touch screen interfaces that detect a contact area of a finger. . . . A POSITA would have considered Rosenberg’s disclosures and been motivated to modify the “graphical passcode” features of Rogers so that the disclosed device is capable of detecting information input by a pad or end of a finger, because it would provide a “generally easily distinguishable” basis upon which to program the device disclosed in Rogers to detect a “measurable parameter” based on “contact area.” A POSITA would have further recognized that these features of Rogers and Rosenberg could be successfully combined because both references teach a “calibration” mode in which the user trains the device to recognize a specific range of input parameters that allows for some variation in input while remaining within acceptable tolerances. . . . A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Rogers in this manner for at least the same reasons.” slip op. at 60
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,086 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,982,086 - Exotec Product France SAS / Exotec North America Inc. et al. v. Opex CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00850 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–12, 14, and 23–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Raizer and Hangzhou.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes an express construction” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In this case, we must determine whether one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Hangzhou’s disclosure of driving its auto-guided trolleys 200 under shelves 100 would improve the operation of Raizer’s system in the same way. For us to resolve this question in Petitioner’s favor, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). However, bodily incorporation, i.e., “an actual physical substitution of” Hangzhou’s auto-guided trolleys or operating software into Raizer’s system, is not required. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,472,632 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,472,632 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00714 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: Goldenberg anticipates or renders claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–19 obvious, and Goldenberg with Cruz-Hernandez renders claims 7, 14, and 20 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’907 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:14–62. Because we discern no dispositive difference between the parties’ proposals, and neither party has argued that the choice between the two would affect the outcome,6 we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for this decision. We note, however, that our decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“to,” as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15, to “require[] a cause-and-effect relationship between a secondary event (e.g., a haptic effect) that occurs in reaction to a first event (e.g., entry of the user input element to one or more positions within the boundary range of positions).” PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 44). Patent Owner argues that “in response to” refers to more than just a coincidence and involves at least some degree of causality. Id. at 27 (citing American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex. 2007, 12–14 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2008, 7 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2006, 30:13–31:2, 32:8–11, 32:17– 21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)); PO Sur-reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 2009, 34:8–19, 36:5–21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“to,” as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15, to “require[] a cause-and-effect relationship between a secondary event (e.g., a haptic effect) that occurs in reaction to a first event (e.g., entry of the user input element to one or more positions within the boundary range of positions).” PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 44). Patent Owner argues that “in response to” refers to more than just a coincidence and involves at least some degree of causality. Id. at 27 (citing American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex. 2007, 12–14 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2008, 7 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2006, 30:13–31:2, 32:8–11, 32:17– 21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)); PO Sur-reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 2009, 34:8–19, 36:5–21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)).” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 10,627,907 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,627,907 - Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00753 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 12 is unpatentable as obvious over Kennewick and Ross because their combination teaches each limitation and a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine them with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“A. Legal Principles “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The burden of production, however, may shift between the petitioner and patent owner as arguments and evidence are presented during the proceeding. Id. A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.2 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a POSITA pertaining to the ’160 patent “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of speech and natural language-interfaces for interacting with and directing computer systems and software, including speech recognition and processing (and more experience could substitute for less formal education, and vice versa).” Pet. 10; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 11–15. Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. generally. We determine that Petitioner’s proposed skill level is consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’160 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. In addition, we find the skill level consistent with the education and experience that a POSITA would have had. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (citing factors to consider when determining level of ordinary skill in the art). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed skill level to apply in this proceeding.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“After review of the evidence, we determine that the record does not support Patent Owner’s construction of “expected contexts” as “a subset of the contexts in a context stack.” PO Resp. 16–17. The sole mention of “expected contexts” in the ’160 patent’s description is the following: “The knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may access a set of expected contexts that are stored in a context stack to determine a most likely context.” Ex. 1001, 13:66–14:2. This statement does not provide any definition for “expected contexts.” Although the ’160 patent’s description mentions a “set,” this is not the same as a “subset” as Patent Owner proposes in its construction. Similarly, claims 1, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’160 patent recite “one or more expected contexts” but do not elaborate further on what an “expected context” is. Likewise, “expected contexts” were mentioned but not discussed or defined in the prosecution history of the ’160 patent. Ex. 1012, 281, 305, 382. Consequently, we decline to restrict the construction of “one or more expected contexts” as Patent Owner proposes. To the extent that Patent Owner so argues, we do not consider “expected contexts” to require the use of “context specific matchers.” In this regard, the ’160 patent states that “knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may use context specific matchers that are able to identify context such as time, location, numbers, dates, categories (e.g., music, movies, television, addresses, etc.) and other context.” Ex. 1001, 14:2–6 (emphasis added). Hence, the ’160 patent states that “contexts” may be identified using “context specific matchers” but this is not required. We further decline to interpret “one or more expected contexts” to exclude “possible contexts” as Patent Owner argues. Simply put, we find no support in the ’160 patent or elsewhere that “expected contexts” cannot be “possible contexts” or that the two terms are mutually exclusive of one another. Although the ’160 patent mentions scoring “possible contexts” (Ex. 1001, 21:7–9), we find no reason why these “possible contexts” cannot also be “expected contexts.” Although we agree with Petitioner that “expected contexts” are ones” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“motivations to combine with reasonable expectation of success. However, in its Sur-reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination “makes no sense” because Ross’s contexts are arranged in order by recency of access such that no scoring is required to find a selected context, whereas Kennewick scores every context in the context stack to select a context. PO Sur-reply 9–10. Patent Owner further argues that Ross’s context grammars are fixed whereas Kennewick’s are dynamic according to prior utterances, and that Ross’s search ends upon finding a match whereas Kennewick scores the entire context stack. Id. at 10. Patent Owner’s late arguments, to which Petitioner has not had an opportunity to respond, do not undermine Petitioner’s proposed motivations to combine with reasonable expectation of success. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner’s arguments hinge on its assertion that “expected contexts” are not scored and are dynamic, but the ’160 patent does not define “expected contexts” in this way. See § III.C, supra. Furthermore, we do not agree that Ross’s search necessarily ends upon finding a match or that Kennewick and Ross are otherwise incompatible. See Inst. Dec. 19–22. Thus, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Kennewick and Ross with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed invention. 4.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 7,640,160 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,640,160 - PTAB · Oct 16, 2025 · PGR2025-00052 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–17 because the written-description and enablement challenges met the more-likely-than-not threshold; it found the indefiniteness and obviousness challenges insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post grant review. See 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Considering the arguments and evidence presented, we institute a post grant review because Petitioner demonstrates “that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). The following preliminary findings of fact and conclusions of law are made solely to determine whether to institute review. Any final decision will be based on the full trial record.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had an undergraduate degree, a Ph.D., and post-doctoral experience in scientific fields relevant to [the] study of protein structure and function (e.g., chemistry, biochemistry, biology, biophysics). From training and experience, the person would have been familiar with factors influencing protein structure, folding and activity, production of modified proteins using recombinant DNA techniques, and use of biological assays to characterize protein function, as well with techniques used to analyze protein structure (i.e., sequence searching and alignments, protein modeling software, etc.). Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 13, 35–36). At this stage of the proceeding and on the record before us, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which is presently undisputed and appears consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art references of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownOther
“The definition of “modified PH20 polypeptide” in the ’345 patent permits up to 150 amino acid replacements but only “so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.” Ex. 1001, 47:8–11. That is, the definition of “modified PH20 polypeptide” in the ’345 patent expressly requires some hyaluronidase activity. On the current record, we therefore adopt the definition for “modified PH20 polypeptide” as recited in the ’345 patent to encompass polypeptides with some hyaluronidase activity. The ’345 patent provides a specific definition of the term “hyaluronidase domain,” i.e., a “region of about 340 amino acids in length that corresponds to amino acid residues 38-374 of the precursor human PH20 sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:6.”6 Ex. 1001, 68:19–24.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms for the purpose of deciding whether to institute post grant 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))). Any final written decision entered in this case may include final claim constructions that differ from the preliminary understanding of the claims set forth above. Any final claim constructions will be based on the full trial record.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 12,264,345 - PTAB · Oct 16, 2025 · PGR2025-00030 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1, 2, and 6–30 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on written description and enablement; it did not show likely obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)) and in consideration of the Petition and the cited evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, and 6–30 of the ’758 patent, and therefore, we grant post-grant review for the reasons articulated below.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the level of skill reflected in prior art relevant to the ’758 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not have expertise specifically in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 15–16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases. See id.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 48:38–53 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms for the purpose of deciding whether to institute post-grant 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)). Any final written decision entered in this case may include final claim constructions that differ from the preliminary understanding of the claims set forth above. Any final claim constructions will be based on the full trial record.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,054,758 - PTAB · Oct 16, 2025 · PGR2025-00024 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1, 2, 6–15, and 17–30, finding written-description and enablement challenges likely to succeed; the obviousness challenge was not shown likely to succeed.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)) and in consideration of the Petition and the cited evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 6–15, and 17–30 of the ’590 patent, and therefore, we grant post-grant review for the reasons articulated below.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the level of skill reflected in prior art relevant to the ’590 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not have expertise specifically in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 15–16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases. See id.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, Dr. Hecht persuasively demonstrates that when the full scope of claim 1 is addressed, which includes not just single mutations in the PH20 polypeptide, but also multiple mutations, there is no expectation of structural homogeneity, stating that “[i]ntroducing multiple amino acid changes simultaneously . . . could prevent the folding of sequences into secondary structures and structural motifs and can destabilize those structures if they do form.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. Dr. Hecht notes that claim 1 allows “21-42 changes, with each additional change (except at position 307) being to 1 of 19 other amino acids. But the up to 21-42 changes also can be at any of between 430 and 465 (or, in the case of the broadest claims, 474) different positions depending on which unmodified PH20 sequence is used.” Id. ¶ 120. Dr. Park calculates that “95% sequence identity [i.e., the higher percentage identity recited by the narrowest of the challenged claims] to PH201-465 means that the protein can have 23 total changes,” and that where one of those changes is one of nine choices at position 307 as required by claim 1, the number of possible PH20 polypeptides with twenty-two additional changes is “extremely large by all accounts, ranging from 1059 to 10112.” See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 178–179. Dr. Hecht characterizes the number of possible mutations as “astronomical in size.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 125.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 48:38–64 (emphasis added). Based on this express definition, the current record does not support the interpretation of Dr. Triggs-Raine that the “term ‘modified PH20 polypeptide,’ therefore, has a purely structural meaning in the context of the specification.” Ex. 2055 ¶ 68. Indeed, when reproducing the definition from this column of the ’590 patent, Dr. Triggs-Raine does not include any text after the first period, stating that “is not part of the express definition of ‘modified PH20 polypeptide’” and “merely describes an upper limit for the number of modifications possibly allowing a modified PH20 polypeptide to exhibit enzymatic activity.” Ex. 2055 ¶¶ 67, 77–78. On this record, however, we find that the entire text quoted above is part of the definition of “modified PH20 polypeptide” because it continues to detail specific elements required including a requirement that replacements in the PH20 polypeptide are permitted “so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.” Ex. 1001, 48:44–46; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 48 (stating a “patent’s definition controls”). Dr. Triggs-Raine recognizes the “therapeutic use of hyaluronidases” and notes that “different hyaluronidases were known to have different functions and substrates.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29, 113.7 That is, Dr. Triggs-Raine recognizes hyaluronidase activity as the primary utility for the modified PH20 polypeptides recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,060,590
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.