- Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, 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))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,203 - Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC v. Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00736 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Garfinkle and Kosten; claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious over Garfinkle, Kosten, and Allen.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedPetitioner expert discountedGranted
“Our reviewing court has held that if a declarant fails to qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art, then that person’s testimony regarding the knowledge or motivations of one of ordinary skill in the art is irrelevant as a matter of law. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.”). Mr. Daniels’ declaration consists of an analysis of the cited prior art in comparison to the challenged claims and a discussion of whether there would have been a 2 The motion does not seek to exclude the declaration of the named inventor of the ’725 patent, Nick Stiliadis. See Ex. 2109 (Stiliadis Declaration). motivation to combine the prior art. Ex. 2121 ¶¶ 4–20. Mr. Tulchin’s declaration addresses claim construction issues. Ex. 2131 ¶¶ 5–35. Each declarant, therefore, addresses issues that must be considered from the vantage point of a POSITA at the time of the invention, meaning a person with the level of ordinary skill defined in Section II.E.1 above. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (claim construction); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (obviousness). If Mr. Daniels and Mr. Tulchin do not qualify as POSITAs, as Petitioner alleges, then their opinion testimony is inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 (Testimony by Expert Witnesses). We find that there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that Mr. Daniels qualifies as a POSITA in relation to the ’725 patent. Mr. Daniels has an undergraduate degree in engineering physics in addition to a law degree. Ex. 2121 ¶ 2. His declaration, however, does not establish that he also has “one year of experience related to marketing and distribution of multimedia material over a computer network, or the equivalent.” See Section II.E.1 above. Mr. Daniels characterizes his non-legal work experience as follows: The rest of my professional career has been spent working in my own companies in the research, development and prototyping/commercialization of a number of different technologies, principally including fishing rod technology, digital video file transport, storage and processing, LED-based light-emitting tapes, drone control systems, wearable medical related electronic devices and breath-based diagnostic devices. Ex. 2121 ¶ 3; see also Ex. 1023, 99 (Daniels Deposition) (describing work on “a suite of interactive television innovations,” including “the first working pause button”). None of the projects identified appears to relate to “marketing and distribution of multimedia material over a computer network.” Patent Owner argues that Mr. Daniels “was involved (at the time of the filing of the application which matured into the ’725 patent) in making inventions, that dealt with interactive television, video pause buttons and video file provision over the Internet.” Sur-Reply Br. 6. However, neither Mr. Daniels’ declaration nor his deposition testimony assert that he ever worked on “video file provision over the Internet,” let alone that he did so for one year or more. See Ex. 2121 ¶ 3; Ex. 1023, 98–100. We find that the evidence in the record is not sufficient for us to conclude that Mr. Daniels qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art. We further find a lack of evidence establishing that Mr. Tulchin qualifies” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the following definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art: “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field plus one year of experience related to marketing and distribution of multimedia material over a computer network, or the equivalent.” Dec. 9. Patent Owner’s proposed definition differs from the Board’s only in that it adds a Bachelor of Science in engineering physics to the list of degrees that one of ordinary skill in the art might possess. See id. We view engineering physics as being related to the fields of electrical engineering, computer engineering, and computer science. Accordingly, following a review of the full record, we view Patent Owner’s proposed definition in its Response as consistent with the ’725 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaning
“When interpreting the meaning of a claim, “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Patent Owner has, briefly, proposed six claim terms for construction: exhibition; exhibitor; broadcast exhibitor; distribution; marketing; and storing. PO Resp. 10. The Petition states that “[t]o resolve the grounds presented herein, Petitioner does not believe that any term requires explicit construction.” Pet. 12. We see no reason why “exhibition” and “exhibitor” should be understood as having a meaning as narrow as Patent Owner proposes. “Exhibition” and “exhibitor” encompass more than just a showing by “one in the exhibition business” because the specification of the ’725 patent identifies certain “exhibitors” that are not “in the exhibition business”: e.g., a high school, libraries, and other non-profit organizations. Ex. 1001, 12:38–41 (“schools, libraries, and other non-profit organizations”), Fig. 1 (“high school”). The plain and ordinary meaning of “exhibitors” is at least broad enough to encompass the types of exhibitors identified in the specification: movie theaters, television stations, satellite television operators, cable television operators, and non-profit organizations such as high schools. Ex. 1001, 4:20–22, Fig. 1. We further determine that some of these exhibitor types, including at least satellite and cable television operators, are “broadcast exhibitors.” Moreover, we find that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “distribution” is not so narrow as to be limited to “the business of marketing films and providing copies to venues,” as Patent Owner proposes. See PO Resp. 10 (emphasis added). The claimed invention is a “method of marketing and distributing multimedia,” which is not limited to films. We agree with Petitioner that the term is at least broad enough to encompass distribution of any type of multimedia to any type of exhibitor contemplated in the specification. See Ex. 1001, 1:20–25 (multimedia types); Reply Br. 6. Similarly, the plain and ordinary meanings of “marketing” and “storing” are not limited to Patent Owner’s specific examples: interesting individuals in seeing a film and saving to non-volatile storage, respectively. See PO Resp. 10; Tr. at 57:3–7. The invention is directed to marketing and distributing multimedia, not just films, Ex. 1001, 16:21, and while the Specification refers to storing multimedia on “hard drives,” id. at 4:35–37, 4:44–52, there is nothing in the Specification, claims, or prosecution history that would limit storage only to hard drives or other non-volatile storage. The intrinsic evidence suggests that the proper construction of each” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Garfinkle’s video distribution system to implement Kosten’s distribution method to achieve the improvements described therein, such as: access to a large number of video products and advertising materials available at a centralized location (Ex-1007, 54; Ex-1005, 1:42–49, 1:54–2:12), improved advertising capabilities (Ex-1007, 54; Ex-1005, 1:42–49, 1:54–2:12), and improved distribution processes resulting in lower shipping and handling costs and labor intensity, improved security against piracy, wider and more flexible distribution capabilities, cost reductions for movie theaters, increased control over time and locations of exhibitions by studios and distributors, an ability to scale up or down distribution based on success in theaters, and an ability to track and monitor sales and marketing data (Ex-1007, 52, 54). Pet. 14 (citing Dystar Textilfarben v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (A motivation to combine exists when the “improvement” results in a product or process that is “stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.”)). Petitioner further asserts that such a person would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the objective of efficient content distribution through the proposed combination of Garfinkle and Kosten with no change in their respective functions because: (1) both are “from the same field and address the same well-known issues”; and (2) both references purport to achieve this objective in similar and predictable ways, “such as using the well-known teachings of digitizing content, correlating multimedia and associated advertising materials, and connecting multiple user sites to the central station through a public communications system.” Id. at 13, 16–17 (internal citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1005, 2:58–3:5, 3:32–49, 4:37–39; Ex. 1007, 54); Ex. 1002 ¶ 68. Patent Owner contends that there would have been no motivation to combine Kosten and Garfinkle because each represents a “complete solution[] to different file transport modes, Kosten involving simple file transmission to a theater and billboards, and Garfinkle involving file transmission to a [video-on-demand] user. Neither has a problem which is addressed by the other.” PO Resp. 33. Petitioner argues, however, and we agree, that “(1) a known technique can provide motivation to combine and (2) a known technique does not need to improve upon the primary reference—it just must be a ‘suitable option.’” Reply Br. 21 (citing Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). Thus, it does not matter that Kosten and Garfinkle each represent a complete and functional solution to digitally transporting media files. If the references in the combination address a known problem, such as issues with multimedia distribution, see Pet. 13–14, and the proposed combination is a suitable solution, then there would have been a motivation to combine the two references. Moreover, Petitioner persuasively argues that by combining Kosten and Garfinkle, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to achieve benefits such as lower shipping and handling costs, improved security against piracy, wider and more flexible distribution capabilities, an ability to more easily scale distribution up or down as needed, among other benefits. Pet. 14. We find that these benefits would have provided a sufficient motivation to combine Garfinkle’s technical implementation of a distribution process for large multimedia files with Kosten’s proposed business application, “beaming” films directly to theaters via satellite. Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are without merit.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,574,725 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,574,725 - Abbott Laboratories / Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Altivera LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00425 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy; the Board did not reach the alternative Bandy grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. See generally PO Resp. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’307 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8–9.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“both the unique sensor ID as well as the associated unique wireless device ID is contradicted, or at least unsupported, by the claim language and the Specification. We determine that this limitation does not require authentication of both the unique sensor ID and the unique wireless device ID, or otherwise require authentication using the unique wireless ID. Rather, the limitation only requires authentication of the unique sensor ID. The language and structure of the claim itself, “the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID associated with said unique wireless device ID,” requires authentication of the unique sensor ID but not the unique wireless device ID. See Ex. 1001, 19:51–52 (emphasis added). The portion of the limitation reciting “associated with said unique wireless device ID” is linguistically an appositive modifying the “unique sensor ID.” Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges the “plain meaning of the claim term is that the remote server authenticates the unique sensor ID and that such unique sensor ID is associated with a unique wireless device ID.” PO Resp. 18.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed constructions of any of these other claim terms or phrases. PO Resp. 24. We agree with the parties that the identified limitations—which each recite a “means” or “means for” performing a particular function—are means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). And we agree with Petitioner’s uncontested identification of the recited functions and corresponding structure for these limitations for the reasons explained by Petitioner. See Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:20–21, 2:24–28, 3:33–36, 17:18–30); id. at 13–15 (citing Ex. 1009, 9:4–6, 9:19–20, 9:57–65, 10:10– 11) (explaining that Lovejoy is incorporated by reference into the ’307 Patent). We adopt the uncontested constructions identified by Petitioner, as” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the improvements offered by the incorporation of Heller’s teachings would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Beck and Heller in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Confirming Petitioner’s assertion that the combination yields improvements, Heller states that it improves the type of glucose monitor used in one of Beck’s embodiments. Beck states that its “medical device 130 includes a glucose meter” which “measure[s] blood glucose levels of blood applied to test strips.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 34. Specifically addressing such “conventional” test strip glucose monitoring, Heller states that its in vivo glucose sensor system addresses a need for continuous or automatic monitoring in a small, comfortable device. Ex. 1016, 2:1–7, 2:15–58, 3:19–25. As such, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Beck and Heller to improve Beck’s medical device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. We further agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate sensor implementation details described in Heller, e.g., an A/D converter and patient attachment systems, with Beck’s medical device. Pet. 44–45, 53, 55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 228, 234, 236–238, 259, 267, 278, which do no more than yield predictable results, e.g., converting signals or attaching a sensor to a patient. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401 (“[A] combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 7,969,307 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,969,307 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00329 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 12–15, 17, and 20–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Stone and Hoyos, with Varghese additionally applied to claims 7, 15, and 22.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of biometric authentication techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4. Petitioner also asserts that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard” for an ordinarily skilled artisan. Id. at 4–5. Dr. Jones’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–20. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan except for the language “at least” that qualifies the experience level and allows the experience level to encompass an expert’s level of skill. Inst. Dec. 21. We explained that except for the language “at least” that qualifies the experience level, “Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan comports with the technology and claims of the ’010 patent as well as the asserted references.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). In the Response, Patent Owner notes that for “the purposes of this” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“3. WHETHER STONE IS ANALOGOUS ART (a) General Principles “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). According to the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court’s KSR decision “directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly, stating that ‘familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis by the court) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402). In an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing that a reference is analogous art. See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The scope of analogous art includes references “from the same field of endeavor” and references “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). When evaluating the field of endeavor, a “factfinder must consider each reference’s disclosure in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances,’ and ‘weigh those circumstances from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.’” Airbus, 941 F.3d at 1380 (citations omitted) (quoting Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326); see id. at 1381. Hence, a field-of-endeavor analysis should consider a patent’s claims and written description. See id. at 1380–81.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“4. WHETHER AN ORDINARILY SKILLED ARTISAN WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE THE TEACHINGS OF THE REFERENCES WITH A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS (a) Petitioner’s Contentions (i) Motivation to Combine: The Proposed Combination To show the proposed combination, Petitioner provides the following annotated version of Stone’s Figure 2 combined with Stone’s Figure 3 together with additional steps according to Hoyos (Pet. 20): The above illustration includes Stone’s Figure 2 showing display 200 on an electronic device, Stone’s Figure 3 showing steps 300 through 318 for transferring funds to a recipient, and the following annotations in red: (1) a dashed line from the “$ Send money” button in Figure 2 to step 300 for “Select Currency for Display” in Figure 3; (2) a dashed line from name box 202 in Figure 2 to step 312 for “Enter Recipient Information” in Figure 3; (3) a dashed line from funding source box 206 in Figure 2 to step 314 for “Enter Funding Source” in Figure 3; (4) a dashed line from the “Send” button 214 in Figure 2 to step 316 for “Confirm?” in Figure 3; and (5) additional steps after a “Yes” determination in step 316 for “Confirm?” as follows: (i) “Capture biometric info”; (ii) “Perform fraud detection”; (iii) “Trans authenticated?”; and (iv) “Stop transaction.” Pet. 20; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 62; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 11–12, 16, 23–24, 29–35, Figs. 2–3.” slip op. at 42
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“5. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 (a) Preamble 1.0 Claim 1 recites “[a] system.” Ex. 1001, 13:56. Petitioner contends that Stone teaches claim 1’s preamble because Stone discloses “system 400 configured to utilize the currency display over a network 402.” Pet. 22 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 40). According to Petitioner, “Stone further describes that its system includes software ‘such as program code and/or data . . . stored on one or more computer readable mediums.’” Id. at 23 (alteration by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 54). Patent Owner makes no arguments specific to claim 1’s preamble. See, e.g., Resp. 14–34; Sur-reply 2–26. Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. Generally, a preamble does not limit a claim. Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We need not decide whether claim 1’s preamble limits the claim because, for the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Jones’s testimony, we agree with” slip op. at 62
Patent outcomesUS 9,972,010 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,972,010 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00331 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese; the Board did not reach the other asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of biometric authentication techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4. Petitioner also asserts that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard” for an ordinarily skilled artisan. Id. Dr. Jones’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–20. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan except for the language “at least” that qualifies the experience level and allows the experience level to encompass an expert’s level of skill. Inst. Dec. 21. We explained that except for the language “at least” that qualifies the experience level, “Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan comports with the technology and claims of the ’886 patent as well as the asserted references.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). In the Response, Patent Owner notes that for “the purposes of this” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artOther
“4. WHETHER STONE IS ANALOGOUS ART (a) General Principles “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). According to the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court’s KSR decision “directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly, stating that ‘familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis by the court) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402). In an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing that a reference is analogous art. See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The scope of analogous art includes references “from the same field of endeavor” and references “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). When evaluating the field of endeavor, a “factfinder must consider each reference’s disclosure in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances,’ and ‘weigh those circumstances from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.’” Airbus, 941 F.3d at 1380 (citations omitted) (quoting” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successOther
“5. WHETHER AN ORDINARILY SKILLED ARTISAN WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE THE TEACHINGS OF THE REFERENCES WITH A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS (a) Petitioner’s Contentions (i) Motivation to Combine: The Proposed Combination To show the proposed combination, Petitioner provides the following annotated version of Stone’s Figure 2 combined with Stone’s Figure 3 together with additional steps according to Hoyos and Varghese (Pet. 22): The above illustration includes Stone’s Figure 2 showing display 200 on an electronic device, Stone’s Figure 3 showing steps 300 through 318 for transferring funds to a recipient, and the following annotations in red: (1) a dashed line from the “$ Send money” button in Figure 2 to step 300 for “Select Currency for Display” in Figure 3; (2) a dashed line from name box 202 in Figure 2 to step 312 for “Enter Recipient Information” in Figure 3; (3) a dashed line from funds box 204 in Figure 2 to step 304 for “Enter Amount” in Figure 3; (4) a dashed line from funding source box 206 in Figure 2 to step 314 for “Enter Funding Source” in Figure 3; (5) a dashed line from the “Send” button 214 in Figure 2 to step 316 for “Confirm?” in Figure 3; and (6) additional steps after a “Yes” determination in step 316 for “Confirm?” as follows: (i) “Capture biometric info” followed by “Perform fraud detection”; (ii) “Capture location” followed by “Perform fraud detection”; (iii) “Trans authenticated?”; and (iv) “Stop transaction.” Pet. 22; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 11–12, 16, 23–24, 29–35, Figs. 2–3.” slip op. at 46
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“6. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 (a) Preamble 1.0 Claim 1 recites “[a] system.” Ex. 1001, 14:2. Petitioner contends that Stone teaches claim 1’s preamble because Stone discloses system 400 “configured to utilize the currency display over a network 402.” Pet. 23 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 40); see id. at 70. According to Petitioner, system 400 includes “at least a user device 404,” one or more recipient devices 406, and “at least one payment provider server 408” communicating “over the network 402.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 40). Patent Owner makes no arguments specific to claim 1’s preamble. See, e.g., Resp. 14–36; Sur-reply 2–22. Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. Generally, a preamble does not limit a claim. Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We need not decide whether claim 1’s preamble limits the claim because, for the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Jones’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner that Stone teaches claim 1’s preamble. See Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–88. (b)” slip op. at 76
Patent outcomesUS 11,526,886 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,526,886 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00330 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: claims 1, 4–10, and 13–19 over Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese; claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 over Stone, Varghese, and Borovsky.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“all the evidence in the record, for the foregoing reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Stone and Hoyos. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–69; Ex. 1056 ¶¶ 15–16.” slip op. at 33
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that “a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (‘POSITA’) at the time of the claimed invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of biometric authentication techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Petitioner further states that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for POSITA.” Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner has applied Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. We apply Petitioner’s undisputed level of skill in the art with the exception of the phrase “at least” which injects potential ambiguity into the level of skill, because Petitioner’s proposed level of skill appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’656 patent and the prior art. C. Claim Construction We apply the same claim construction standard used by Article III” slip op. at 9
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“III. CONCLUSION14 Weighing the competing evidence and testimony, we determine that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Challenged Claims of the ’656 patent are unpatentable. In summary: 35 Claim(s) Claim(s) Reference(s)/ Claim(s) U.S.C. Shown Not Shown Basis § Unpatentable Unpatentable 1, 4–10, 103(a) Stone, Hoyos, 1, 4–10, 13– 13–19 Varghese 19” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 10,713,656 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,713,656 - Microsoft Corporation v. Partec AGInstitutedPTAB · Jul 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00318 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, finding a reasonable likelihood that Lippert and Budenske render the challenged claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states that for purposes of the Preliminary Response it has applied Petitioner’s recitation of the level of skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner has not proposed its own articulation of the level of ordinary skill. We adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art. It is supported by the testimony of Dr. Long and not disputed by Patent Owner. Further, it appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). B.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Regarding motivation to combine, Petitioner explains: A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the heterogeneous computing system of Lippert with the dynamic iterative sub-tasks assignment method of Budenske partly because doing so would facilitate efficient distributions of subtasks and processing resources during execution of an iterative application, thus fully leveraging the flexibility of the heterogeneous architecture and “reduc[ing] execution time” of computing iterations. EX1005, 391; EX1003, ¶59. Pet. 17. Petitioner further explains: Second, Budenske provides express motivation from implementing its method in a heterogeneous computing system such as Lippert, namely to “fully utilize the architectural flexibility of such a [heterogeneous parallel computing] system.” EX1005, 390. A POSITA would have found that the dynamic flexibility of the heterogeneous computing system taught by Lippert through the “loose coupling” of computation nodes and boosters (EX1004, [0013], [0015] (describing “a maximum flexibility in providing hardware resources”)), naturally complements the dynamic flexibility of remapping sub-tasks among processing resources to account for the actual processing of the sub-tasks by the processing resources during preceding iterations, as taught by Budenske (EX1005, 391), and that the combination for these teachings would provide increased flexibility for optimally processing iterative applications. EX1003, ¶60.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“teaching away” argument: “As discussed above, Budenske actually teaches away from distributing subtasks between processor types, noting that for its teachings to work all processors utilized for a given task must be of the same type. EX1005 at 392; Section VI.A.1.” Prelim. Resp. 23. We already discussed and rejected above Patent Owner’s contention that Budenske describes its teachings would work only if all processors utilized for a given task are of the same type. Thus, the “teaching away” argument also lacks merit. Alternatively, Patent Owner asserts that even if we reject Patent Owner’s “teaching away” argument, “Budenske’s teachings would have strongly weighed against motivating a skilled artisan to develop a system according to the ‘442 Patent claims.” Prelim. Resp. 23–24. We disagree. As discussed above, Budenske acknowledged that its resource mapping method would be more easily accomplished if all the processors were of the same type. It nowhere indicates, as Patent Owner argues, that the method would work only if all the processors were of the same type. slip op. at 24
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,537,442 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00332 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 10–16, 20, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over Kesanupalli, Challener, and Cheng.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has applied Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 13. We apply Petitioner’s undisputed level of skill in the art with the exception of the phrase “at least” which injects potential ambiguity into the level of skill, because Petitioner’s proposed level of skill appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’512 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Upon review of the complete record before us, we determine that it is not necessary for us to expressly construe any claim term. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D. Ground 1: Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–6, 10–16, 20, and 21 over” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“For the following reasons, based on the evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner, we are persuaded that Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Kesanupalli and Challener with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–51, 83. First, Patent Owner’s reliance on what Mr. Ramesh Kesanupalli, the individual, allegedly chose not to include in the disclosure of the Kesanupalli patent reference is unavailing. The question of obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art not an actual person who may or may not have been a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ramesh Kesanupalli is one of five named co-inventors on Kesanupalli. Ex. 1006, code (75). 7 Patent Owner’s argument, in essence, is an improper request to limit the Kesanupalli reference to just the explicit problems addressed, solutions proposed, and goals achieved by the Kesanupalli reference. However, “[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)). We have reviewed all of the cases cited by Patent Owner regarding the determination of obviousness. None of them is at odds with the principle stated in Heck.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Summary of Claim 1 For all the foregoing reasons, Petitioner establishes a by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kesanupalli, Challener, and Cheng.” slip op. at 62
Patent outcomesUS 10,929,512 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,929,512 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00287 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9–12, 14–16, and 22–24 are unpatentable under § 103 over Riepling and Meisels, or Riepling, Manzano, and Meisels; claim 13 was disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. We apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction of “representation of the at least one file.” Petitioner is correct that a representation of a file is not the file itself, but (in keeping with the ordinary meaning of “representation”) is rather some sign or symbol that stands for the folder. Reply 2. This is confirmed by the explicit example of a representation of a folder in the ʼ906 application, illustrated in the portion of Figure 6B reproduced below (highlighted here for purposes of explanation). This portion of Figure 6B depicts representations of two files: “FamilyHistory.docx” and “XmasLetter-2012.pdf.” The ’906 application specifically states: [A] located data resources dialog UI element 630b . . . includes a presentation space 632b for presenting a user detectable representation of some or all of the data objects identified in the received data object identification response from . . . second node 504. Ex. 2004 ¶ 147 (emphasis added). The entries in the above figure are representations of the files, not the files themselves. The actual files are stored in the file system storage associated with the user’s node, and only retrieved if the user selects the “Access” or “Access All” elements. Id. ¶ 148. Patent Owner misconstrues the claim 22 language, “a first representation of the at least one file, in a location among one or more folders, that is stored at the at least one server” and “a second representation of the at least one file, in a location among one or more folders, that is stored at the first node.” Patent Owner infers from this language that the representation is itself a file that is “in a location among one or more folders” and is stored on a server or at a node. PO Resp. 17. Not so — the representation of a file, such as “FamilyHistory.docx” in the above figure, is not stored at a server or node, but rather is simply displayed on a screen. As the ’906 application states: A representation of a program entity may be stored and/or otherwise maintained in a presentation space. As used in this document, the term “presentation space” refers to a storage region allocated and/or otherwise provided for storing presentation information . . . . A screen of a display, for example, is a presentation space.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“because (i) Riepling and Meisels are from the same field of endeavor, directed to sharing files over a network; (ii) the combination would have yielded expected, predictable results, using known and routine computer programming principles, to modify Riepling’s system to generate an electronic message that includes a link pointing to an uploaded file; (iii) the combination would have been readily implemented given Meisels’ teachings of inserting, in an electronic message, a link to a shared location where a file is uploaded; and (iv) the combination was suggested because Meisels expressly disclosed a benefit of sending an email message with a link, to avoid multiple copies of a file from existing at multiple locations, and sending links to one file to multiple recipients and managing permissions on an individual recipient basis. Pet. 67–70 (citing Ex. 1107, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 2, 4, 19; Ex. 1108, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 1, 3, 41–45, 56; Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 194–198). In addition, for reasons similar to the motivation basis, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Id. at 70–71 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 199–200). Other than its arguments directed to ’520 claim requirement 9[l], discussed below in Section III.D.4.d), Patent Owner does not further address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the combination of Riepling and Meisels. As discussed in that section, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have applied the document link teachings of Meisels to modify Riepling. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Riepling and Meisels in the manner argued by Petitioner.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that set content field 325 of Riepling teaches or suggests claim requirement 9[b]. As Petitioner’s expert explains, the fact that field 325 has an appearance identical to that of fields 321–324 in Figure 3, which fields are specifically stated to be “text field[s],” strongly suggests that field 325 is also a text field. Mowry Decl. ¶ 70; see also Reply 10–11. Patent Owner’s suggestion that field 325 could be a dropdown list or other type of field is contradicted by the fact that it does not show the typical dropdown arrow associated with a dropdown box, or other typical non-textbox appearance such as the checkbox appearance of field 320. Moreover, in the example of Figure 3, the “Set Content” entry is “audio,” which is a file description. Reply 10. The fact that “JPEG” is checked in field 320 is not inconsistent with the “audio” entry in field 325, given that, as Riepling explains, “it may be possible for audio files such as MP3 files to contain non-MP3 data, such as JPEG data embedded within the MP3 files.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1107 ¶ 32; Mowry 2nd Decl. ¶ ¶ 101–104). Also, there is no reason why the Figure 5 response that gives the uploader the ability to provide additional description of the file being uploaded is inconsistent with the ability of the requester first describing what type of file is being requested via field 325 in Figure 3. Id. at 11–12. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that the record supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim requirement 9[b].” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 11,611,520 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00286 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 17–21 are unpatentable under § 103 over Houston and Garcia; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We conclude that there is no basis for Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “representation of the at least one folder.” Petitioner is correct that a representation of a folder is not the folder itself, but (in keeping with the ordinary meaning of “representation”) is rather some sign or symbol that stands for the folder. Reply 2. This is confirmed by the explicit example of a representation of a folder in the ’635 application, illustrated in the portion of Figure 6D reproduced below (highlighted here for purposes of explanation). This portion of Figure 6D depicts representations of several folders, including the highlighted “Music” folder. The ’635 application specifically states: A folder content pane UI element 648d in navigation window UI element 646d is presented including representations of one or more data objects[11] at a location, identified in a path UI element 650d. A pointer UI element 652d illustrates a drag and drop operation of a “Music” folder represented in contents pane UI element 648d, dropped on edit window UI element 602d. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123 (emphasis added). The word “Music” in the above figure is a representation of a folder, not the folder itself. The actual folder is an entity in a file system that stores files (in the case of a “Music” folder, presumably MP3 or WAV files, or the like).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not pertinent to Petitioner’s proffered combination of Houston with Garcia as applied to the remaining challenged claims 17–21. As discussed further below, Petitioner relies on Garcia as supplementing Houston for details regarding the requirements of generating and sending an email with a link to a folder but without a file attachment, and for synchronizing folders and providing interfaces for display of shared folders. Pet. 26–27, 36–39, 57–60. For the challenged claims, Petitioner does not need to rely on the combination to modify Houston’s system such that, when an icon for a shared folder is created in Houston’s interface at an invited user’s client, the client does not store a file in the shared folder — 14 For this argument and others, Patent Owner cites for additional support portions of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/233,787. PO Resp. 18, 42, 46; Sur-Reply 9–12. This application is designated in Houston as a related application, and incorporated by reference therein. Ex. 1003, code (60), 1:6–10. We denied as untimely Patent Owner’s request to belatedly add this application to the record. Ex. 3002; Paper 39. Even accepting Patent Owner’s representations of the relied-on disclosures in that application, those disclosures are cumulative to Houston’s criticisms of systems that store documents remotely, and are irrelevant for the same reasons as discussed herein with respect to those Houston disclosures. that aspect of the Houston/Garcia combination is only relevant to claims 1–8, which have been disclaimed. Id. at 40–41; Ex. 2045.15 Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that Houston teaches away from combining with Garcia to delay storing a file when a folder is shared is not applicable to Petitioner’s challenges of claim 17–21, in light of our conclusion set forth above in Section III.C rejecting Patent Owner’s proposed construction of claim 17. The fact that the Houston system ensures the availability of synchronized local copies of files at each user’s local system and criticizes systems that store documents remotely, such as in Garcia, is irrelevant to those claims. On this record, there is nothing about that particular difference in the approaches of Houston and Garcia that would support a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from adopting Houston to take advantage of the teachings in Garcia regarding use of email and folder interfaces. In sum, Patent Owner focuses on a specific irrelevant detail of Houston regarding local storage of files, whereas Petitioner relies on other features of the combination of Houston and Garcia. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“To give substantial weight to objective indicia of nonobviousness such as commercial success, a proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Nexus is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[T]here is no nexus unless the evidence presented is ‘reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220 (quoting Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). A patentee is entitled to a presumption of nexus “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “[T]he patentee retains the burden of proving the degree to which evidence of secondary considerations tied to a product is attributable to a particular claimed invention.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378. The Federal Circuit has held that “if the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them, then a nexus is presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A finding that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; rather, “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Fox Factory, 994 F.3d at 1373–74 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 125, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “Ultimately, the fact finder must weigh the [objective indicia] evidence presented in the context of whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.” See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33, 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential) (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331–32 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“However, as Petitioner argues above, Houston discloses that a client can provide an email to the server to invite others to share a folder, and Houston explains that “attaching files [to emails is] cumbersome for many computer users.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 4, 1:41–42, 3:40–43, 7:50–51). From this, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious for the email invitation to notify how to access the folder, rather than sending the folder contents itself. Id. Petitioner further argues that the claim 17[d] requirement would have been obvious over the combination of Houston and Garcia given the disclosure in Garcia of sharing a folder by sending an email with a link to the folder, instead of an attachment. Id. at 27, 57 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 9, 11–12, 10:32–34, 10:38–40, 11:39–43, cl. 3). We are persuaded that the record supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding this claim requirement. Both Houston alone, and the combination of Houston and Garcia, teach or suggest sending an email with a link to a folder to be shared, rather than the folder contents. Only if the recipient clicks on the link are the contents of the folder shared. Ex. 1004, 11:29–31. The act of clicking on the link in the email after the email is received is the required “initiation of the communication” that must occur separately from the email itself, as required by claim 17[d]: “causing generation of at least one email [that] does not include a file attachment, for permitting avoidance of at least one file from being communicated to and stored at the second node until an initiation of the communication of the at least one file by a user of the second node is detected and the communication commences via at least one server that stores the at least one file” (emphasis added). It does not matter if Houston or Garcia automatically downloads local copies of files when a recipient clicks on the email link, because that is a separate step following the step of claim 17[d].” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 11,611,520 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520
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.