• Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00296 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “December 18, 2012, would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with image capture and processing systems or related fields.” Pet. 7 (citing Karam Decl. ¶ 91). Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less and/or different education, but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. According to Petitioner, [t]he prior art also evidences such level of skill.” Id. Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 53–54). 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.10” slip op. at 9

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” 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, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Post-institution, Patent Owner invites us to construe limitation 1[f]’s recitation of “mirror tracking mode” and limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.” PO Resp. 9–14. Regarding the latter, Patent Owner explains that “[i]n the District Court Litigation, ‘adaptive transformation mapping’ was construed as ‘continuously variable transformation mapping’ and ‘transformation mapping’ was construed as a ‘selected set of image transformations.’” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2008, 14, 37; Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 25, 27). Patent Owner does not, however, identify any way that those claim constructions affect our analysis of the parties’ patentability disputes. We find it unnecessary in resolving the parties’ patentability disputes to construe expressly limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,110
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Eyesmatch Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00810 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” 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, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14

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

    “persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4. Thus, on the whole, Petitioner’s shifting, scattered arguments do not persuasively address limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Haan and Francois. And Petitioner’s arguments and evidence addressing claims 2–6, 10–12, 16, and 17 do not cure the foregoing deficiencies in the challenge of claim 1. Pet. 46–52. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of claims 1–6, 10–12, 16, and 17 would have been obvious over Haan and Francois.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have combined these references “to correct image distortions and provide a more realistic mirror image.” Pet. 52–55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 242–249. 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. 35, 38–39 (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) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2009)). “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. In sum, we find for the reasons given that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that to a person of ordinary skill, Rosenberg alone or with Park teaches or suggests limitation 1[f].” slip op. at 44

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

    “shows by a preponderance of the evidence that limitations 1[c] and 1[e] are taught or suggested by Rosenberg and Park, in combination. Pet. 58–64; PO Resp. 39–40; Reply 19–20; Sur-reply 19. Petitioner persuades us that limitations 1[c] and 1[e], would have been obvious over Rosenberg and Park, in combination. Pet. 58–64; Reply 19–20. Patent Owner’s counter arguments are unavailing for multiple reasons. Patent Owner’s arguments fail because they improperly attack Rosenberg’s teachings individually, rather than addressing Petitioner’s combination of the references. PO Resp. 39–40; Sur-reply 19. This is fatal to Patent Owner’s arguments. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, Petitioner presents persuasive arguments and evidence that the references, in combination, teach limitations 1[c] and 1[e], including persuasive evidence that the references’ tilting, resizing, and zooming meet the claim limitations’ “adaptive transformation mapping . . . to generate modified images that appear to be captured from a different point of view” that “corresponds to an image taken from a different angle and a different distance.” Pet. 58–64 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67, 253–268; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26–28, 50, 52, 61, 75 ; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 50–51, 59, Figs. 6A–6B, 7, 8, 14, 15; Ex. 1019, 16–20; Ex. 1021, 2:19–27, 17:19–24, 21:60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11); Reply 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 253–268; Ex. 1021, 17:17–23; Ex. 2012, 63:13–22, 111:13–21). Regarding tilting, after noting the ’110 patent’s disclosure (incorporated from the ’109 patent) of performing tilt transformations (Pet. 10–11), Petitioner advances persuasive evidence that Park discloses such a tilting transformation, thereby teaching the claimed “different angle” (id. at 61–63). Regarding resizing and zooming, citing extensive discussion in the ’110 patent (incorporated from the ’109 patent) of resizing and/or zooming to address the effects of varying distance between an object and a camera, Petitioner and Dr. Karam explain that the prior art’s zooming and resizing meet the claimed “different distance.” Pet. 63 (Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1021, 17:19–23, 21:57–60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11); Ex. 1003 ¶ 265 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1021, 17:19–23, 21:57–60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11). In its counterarguments, Patent Owner suggests that zooming and resizing do not account for “occlusion effects,” but Patent Owner does not persuasively tie this argument to the ’110 patent, failing to cite any portion of the ’110 patent that evinces its invention addresses such effects. PO Resp. 23–25, 39–40.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,110
• Toyota Motor Corp. v. Emerging Automotive LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00814 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–20 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Rector, Kleve, and, for certain claims, additional references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “POSA”) at the time of the invention of the ’244 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or closely related field, with at least two-to-four years’ experience in cloud services for settings customization” and that computer science, or equivalent) could substitute for professional experience and vice-versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 89). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See, generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Malek, adopts the definition proffered by Petitioner and its Declarant, Dr. Almeroth. Ex. 2001 ¶ 37. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal as it is reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner asserts that the term “transferring is configured to instruct” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning – the limitation.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner contends that the challenged claims require more than that the server is capable of the recited transferring (e.g., claims 1 and 17), and must be configured to accomplish the specific purpose of the claims. Id. at 12–17. Our analysis and the outcome of this dispute, however, would not change even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s construction. Therefore, upon review of the entire record, including arguments by the parties and the relied upon evidence, we determine no terms require express construction to reach our decision. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “With regard to this testimony, we note that Dr. Malek does not provide an underlying basis for these statements to support his conclusion that it is “common knowledge” that distributed software systems are less secure than local software systems. Id. In fact, when viewed with Kleve, Dr. Malek’s testimony appears to contradict Kleve’s express teaching that the “system may be further extended to facilitate the virtual key with additional security by requiring remote credential verification at the vehicle . . . by the VCS, using a server, or allowing the Owner to verify the Temporary User’s request.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 49 (emphases added). With regard to Kleve’s disclosure, Dr. Malek further testifies that [a] POSITA would understand that in Kleve credential authorization can be performed by: (1) VCS, (2) server, or (3) owner . . . . While Kleve discloses the verification can be performed by any of these entities, it states the client-side verification at the vehicle using VCS provides additional security. A POSITA would not have been motivated to modify side verification. Rector already uses the more secure client-side verification. Ex. 2003 ¶ 79 (emphases added). Dr. Malek, however, does not explain how Kleve’s express teachings limit “additional security” to client-side verification with VCS. Id. In fact, Kleve expressly discloses the opposite. Kleve teaches that the additional security may be provided by a remote credential certification that “may be done by the VCS, using a server, or allowing the Owner to verify the Temporary User’s request.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Kleve further teaches that the Temporary User may enter “a credential verification password at the vehicles touchscreen visual display while having the VCS, server, or owner compare and verify authorization.” Id. (emphasis added). Even Dr. Malek acknowledges that the verification can be performed by “any of these entities,” including the server. Id. We further note Dr. Almeroth testifies that “[t]he server-side verification may be done above and beyond any verification that takes place locally. The server-side verification could also be done as a check on local verification.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 122. This testimony is consistent with and supported by Kleve’s disclosure, which expressly states that “additional security” includes remote credential verification at the vehicle using a server. Ex. 1007 ¶ 49. As such, we credit Dr. Almeroth’s testimony as his testimony better supported by prior art disclosure.” slip op. at 28

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

    “With regard to this testimony, we note that Dr. Malek does not provide an underlying basis for these statements to support his conclusion that it is “common knowledge” that distributed software systems are less secure than local software systems. Id. In fact, when viewed with Kleve, Dr. Malek’s testimony appears to contradict Kleve’s express teaching that the “system may be further extended to facilitate the virtual key with additional security by requiring remote credential verification at the vehicle . . . by the VCS, using a server, or allowing the Owner to verify the Temporary User’s request.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 49 (emphases added). With regard to Kleve’s disclosure, Dr. Malek further testifies that [a] POSITA would understand that in Kleve credential authorization can be performed by: (1) VCS, (2) server, or (3) owner . . . . While Kleve discloses the verification can be performed by any of these entities, it states the client-side verification at the vehicle using VCS provides additional security. A POSITA would not have been motivated to modify side verification. Rector already uses the more secure client-side verification. Ex. 2003 ¶ 79 (emphases added). Dr. Malek, however, does not explain how Kleve’s express teachings limit “additional security” to client-side verification with VCS. Id. In fact, Kleve expressly discloses the opposite. Kleve teaches that the additional security may be provided by a remote credential certification that “may be done by the VCS, using a server, or allowing the Owner to verify the Temporary User’s request.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Kleve further teaches that the Temporary User may enter “a credential verification password at the vehicles touchscreen visual display while having the VCS, server, or owner compare and verify authorization.” Id. (emphasis added). Even Dr. Malek acknowledges that the verification can be performed by “any of these entities,” including the server. Id. We further note Dr. Almeroth testifies that “[t]he server-side verification may be done above and beyond any verification that takes place locally. The server-side verification could also be done as a check on local verification.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 122. This testimony is consistent with and supported by Kleve’s disclosure, which expressly states that “additional security” includes remote credential verification at the vehicle using a server. Ex. 1007 ¶ 49. As such, we credit Dr. Almeroth’s testimony as his testimony better supported by prior art disclosure.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 11,396,244 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,396,244
• Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01399 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 are unpatentable under § 103, based on Buer alone or in the combinations listed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “1 Apple Inc. filed a motion for joinder and a petition in IPR2024-01399, which were granted, and, therefore, Apple Inc. has been joined as petitioner in this proceeding. We also granted a Joint Motion to Terminate Inter Partes Review Proceeding as to the other petitioner, leaving Apple Inc. as the sole petitioner.” slip op. at 1

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “Here, as Petitioner points out, “[n]one of the elements of the Challenged Claims . . . use the word ‘means,’” similar to the challenged claims in the previous related proceedings. Pet. Reply 2–3; see also IPR2024-00405, Ex. 1001, 22:43–60; IPR2024-00407, Ex. 1001, 22:36–49; IPR2024-00573, Ex. 1001, 21:51–65. As the Federal Circuit stated, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Based on the record before us, this presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6 is not overcome.” slip op. at 17

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See PO Resp. 4; Pet. Reply 2; PO Sur-reply 8. However, we addressed similar arguments with respect to this issue in previous related proceedings. See IPR2024-00405, Paper 24 at 8–25; IPR2024-00407, Paper 25 at 8–26; IPR2024-00573, Paper 27 at 8–29. In fact, during Oral Argument in this proceeding, Patent Owner acknowledged that “this panel construed the claims at issue in [previous proceedings,] IPR2024-573 and 2024-407.” Tr. 20:3–5. In particular, Patent Owner acknowledged that “the Board would rely on and import the construction from those IPRs, . . . 2024-407 and ’573 for the sake of consistent office determination.” Id. at 20:9–11. That is, Patent Owner agreed that the Board should use the prior constructions for the same claim terms at issue in this proceeding. Id. at 26:12–16 (“JUDGE MCKONE: -- it sounds like everybody agrees, that we should use the prior claim constructions from [the] other proceedings . . . Do you agree? MR. HECHT: -- if the Board agrees, absolutely.”). Petitioner also agreed that the Board should use the prior constructions. See id. at 31:23–32:3 (“JUDGE MCKONE: And so I assume you want us to use the same claim construction in this case as the previous case[s]; is that correct? MR WOO: That is correct, Your Honor.”). We agree with the parties that, for the sake of consistency, we apply our claim constructions from the previous proceedings. Tr. 20:22–25. As set forth in the previous related proceedings, we determined that the claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See IPR2024-00405, Paper 24 at 8–25; IPR2024-00407, Paper 25 at 8–26; IPR2024-00573, Paper 27 at 8–29. Thus, for consistency, and for the reasons given in the previous related proceedings, in this proceeding, we also determine that the claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, as discussed below.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. In particular, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the District Court provided a construction for “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service,” as recited in claim 1. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2002, 26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” as we determined in the Decision to Institute, this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Dec. Inst. 9. As we explained, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Id. Thus, as we previously explained, by determining that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, the District Court did not construe the term “enabled.” Id.; see also Ex. 2002, 26. Accordingly, nothing in the Memorandum provides a construction of “enabled” as Patent Owner contends. Id. Thus, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that Buer does not disclose the “enabled” limitation because, in Buer, “no key is provided in exchange for the information.” PO Resp. 33. That is, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction that an application, function or service is “enabled” by a PDK “when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key.” Id. at 32. Here, as Petitioner points out, Buer discloses an authentication component for providing credentials to a service provider to authenticate access to secured services, wherein the authentication component generates an RF signal providing the necessary authentication information to a service provider. Pet. 45; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152, 174. Buer further discloses a mobile device with an RFID client to authenticate a user to another processing system, the mobile device transmitting an enablement signal to a computer with a point-of-sale device. Pet. 47; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 192–195. We find availing Petitioner’s contention that Buer’s authentication component “enables” a wide variety of applications, functions, or services. Pet. 56. Petitioner’s contention is supported by Dr. Wolfe’s testimony and is consistent with the teachings of Buer. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that Buer teaches “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service on one or more of the hybrid device and a device associated with the external RDC,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 8,646,042 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,646,042
• Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00782 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated prior-art grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “Here, as Petitioner points out, “[n]one of the elements of the Challenged Claims . . . use the word ‘means,’” similar to the challenged claims in the previous related proceedings. Pet. Reply 2–3; see also IPR2024-00405, Ex. 1001, 22:43–60; IPR2024-00407, Ex. 1001, 22:36–49; IPR2024-00573, Ex. 1001, 21:51–65. As the Federal Circuit stated, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Based on the record before us, this presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6 is not overcome.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. In particular, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the District Court provided a construction for “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service,” as recited in claim 1. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2002, 26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” as we determined in the Decision to Institute, this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Dec. Inst. 9. As we explained, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Id. Thus, as we previously explained, by determining that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, the District Court did not construe the term “enabled.” Id.; see also Ex. 2002, 26. Accordingly, nothing in the Memorandum provides a construction of “enabled” as Patent Owner contends. Id. Thus, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that Buer does not disclose the “enabled” limitation because, in Buer, “no key is provided in exchange for the information.” PO Resp. 33. That is, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction that an application, function or service is “enabled” by a PDK “when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key.” Id. at 32.” slip op. at 39

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Principles of Law A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-obviousness.10 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 24

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

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. In particular, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the District Court provided a construction for “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service,” as recited in claim 1. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2002, 26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” as we determined in the Decision to Institute, this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Dec. Inst. 9. As we explained, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Id. Thus, as we previously explained, by determining that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, the District Court did not construe the term “enabled.” Id.; see also Ex. 2002, 26. Accordingly, nothing in the Memorandum provides a construction of “enabled” as Patent Owner contends. Id. Thus, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that Buer does not disclose the “enabled” limitation because, in Buer, “no key is provided in exchange for the information.” PO Resp. 33. That is, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction that an application, function or service is “enabled” by a PDK “when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key.” Id. at 32. Here, as Petitioner points out, Buer discloses an authentication component for providing credentials to a service provider to authenticate access to secured services, wherein the authentication component generates an RF signal providing the necessary authentication information to a service provider. Pet. 45; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152, 174. Buer further discloses a mobile device with an RFID client to authenticate a user to another processing system, the mobile device transmitting an enablement signal to a computer with a point-of-sale device. Pet. 47; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 192–195. We find availing Petitioner’s contention that Buer’s authentication component “enables” a wide variety of applications, functions, or services. Pet. 56. Petitioner’s contention is supported by Dr. Wolfe’s testimony and is consistent with the teachings of Buer. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that Buer teaches “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service on one or more of the hybrid device and a device associated with the external RDC,” as recited in claim 1. v. Claim 1 Conclusion Based on the complete record presented, Petitioner has shown that Buer teaches all limitations of claim 1. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Buer.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 8,646,042 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,646,042
• Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00075 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the asserted combinations of Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer, and Nishikawa.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “Challenged Claims. . . use the word ‘means,’” similar to the challenged claims in the previous related proceedings. Pet. Reply 3; see also IPR2024- 00405, Ex. 1001, 22:43–60; IPR2024-00407, Ex. 1001, 22:36–49; IPR2024- 00573, Ex. 1001, 21:51–65. As the Federal Circuit stated, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Based on the record before us, this presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6 is not overcome.” slip op. at 18

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See PO Resp. 4; Pet. Reply 2; PO Sur-reply 10. However, we addressed similar arguments with respect to this issue in previous related proceedings. See IPR2024-00405, Paper 24 at 8–25; IPR2024-00407, Paper 25 at 8–26; IPR2024-00573, Paper 27 at 8–29. In fact, during Oral Argument in this proceeding, Patent Owner acknowledged that “this panel construed the claims at issue in [previous proceedings,] IPR2024-573 and 2024-407.” Tr. 20:3–5. In particular, Patent Owner acknowledged that “the Board would rely on and import the construction from those IPRs, . . . 2024-407 and ’573 for the sake of consistent office determination.” Id. at 20:9–11. That is, Patent Owner agreed that the Board should use the prior constructions for the same claim terms at issue in this proceeding. Id. at 26:12–16 (“JUDGE MCKONE: -- it sounds like everybody agrees, that we should use the prior claim constructions from the other proceedings . . . Do you agree? MR. HECHT: -- if the Board agrees, absolutely.”). Petitioner also agreed that the Board should use the prior constructions. See id. at 31:23–32:3 (“JUDGE MCKONE: And so I assume you want us to use the same claim construction in this case as the previous case[s]; is that correct? MR WOO: That is correct, Your Honor.”). We agree with the parties that, for the sake of consistency, we apply our claim constructions from the previous proceedings. Tr. 20:22–25. As set forth in the previous related proceedings, we determined that the claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See IPR2024-00405, Paper 24 at 8–25; IPR2024-00407, Paper 25 at 8–26; IPR2024-00573, Paper 27 at 8–29. Thus, for consistency, and for the reasons given in the previous related proceedings, in this proceeding, we also determine that the claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, as discussed below.” slip op. at 9

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

    “would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Dua and Giobbi ’157 (Pet. 31), citing Dr. Wolfe’s supporting testimony (Ex. 1003). In particular, Petitioner posits that POSITA would have been motivated and found it obvious to “securely store the financial information in its tamper-resistant tag ‘to prevent hackers from retrieving confidential information’” (Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105, 109)), as disclosed by Giobbi ’157. As Petitioner points out, Giobbi ’157 teaches “credit/debit card information” that is stored in a “profile memory field 232” in the “physical access secured and tamperproof” memory (id.; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 36, 42, 63), and we find persuasive Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have reasonably expected to succeed in “storing the ‘credit card profile or other payment information’ in Dua’s tamper resistant tag memory,” wherein such combination “would have been no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 158).” slip op. at 40

  • Skill levelOther

    “Principles of Law B. A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-obviousness.9 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,679,289 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,679,289
• Google LLC / Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00783 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the listed combinations of Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer, and Nishikawa.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “Challenged Claims. . . use the word ‘means,’” similar to the challenged claims in the previous related proceedings. Pet. Reply 3; see also IPR2024- 00405, Ex. 1001, 22:43–60; IPR2024-00407, Ex. 1001, 22:36–49; IPR2024- 00573, Ex. 1001, 21:51–65. As the Federal Circuit stated, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Based on the record before us, this presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6 is not overcome.” slip op. at 18

  • Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “construction for “enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service,” as recited in claim 1. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2002, 26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabling,” as we determined in the Decision to Institute, this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Dec. Inst. 9. As we explained, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Id. Thus, as we previously explained, by determining that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, the District Court did not construe the term “enabling.” Id.; see also Ex. 2002, 26. Accordingly, nothing in the Memorandum provides a construction of “enabling” as Patent Owner contends. Id. Thus, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that “nowhere does Dua teach or describe . . . providing an access key in exchange for information held locally in the PDK’s service blocks.” PO Resp. 33. That is, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction that an application, function or service is “enabled” by a PDK “when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key.” Id. at 32.” slip op. at 39

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

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing, as they rely on Patent Owner’s arguments that “the specification defines ‘local, secured information’ as information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK” (PO Resp. 30), with which, as discussed above, we do not agree. Dua discloses an “RFID Tag-Reader Module” which includes “Tag Memory 322” that may be tamper resistant. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 105, 109. Thus, we find persuasive Petitioner’s reliance on Dua’s Tag Memory 322, which locally stores information in a tamper-resistant manner, for teaching an integrated, secure memory for storing information locally, wherein the information is secured. Id. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that the proposed combination of Dua and Giobbi ’157 teaches “an integrated, secure memory storing local, secured information,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 34

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

    “would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Dua and Giobbi ’157 (Pet. 31), citing Dr. Wolfe’s supporting testimony (Ex. 1003). In particular, Petitioner posits that POSITA would have been motivated and found it obvious to “securely store the financial information in its tamper-resistant tag ‘to prevent hackers from retrieving confidential information’” (Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105, 109)), as disclosed by Giobbi ’157. As Petitioner points out, Giobbi ’157 teaches “credit/debit card information” that is stored in a “profile memory field 232” in the “physical access secured and tamperproof” memory (id.; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 36, 42, 63), and we find persuasive Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have reasonably expected to succeed in “storing the ‘credit card profile or other payment information’ in Dua’s tamper resistant tag memory,” wherein such combination “would have been no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 158). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s positions on combining the teachings of Dua and Giobbi ’157 and thus Petitioner’s positions stand unopposed as a part of this trial. We have reviewed Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence regarding Petitioner’s proffered reasoning to combine the references, and we agree with and adopt them as our own. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Dua and Giobbi ’157 as proffered in the Petition.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 9,679,289 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,679,289
• PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd. v. Flip Phone Games Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00133 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Sturman and Ho; the Board found the Ho/Jiau/Choi grounds, with and without Ellis, insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We see very little difference between the parties’ respective proposals. We adopt Patent Owner’s marginally more specific proposal as it better reflects the ’089 patent. Additionally, because we would reach the same conclusions under Petitioner’s proposal, we agree with Patent Owner that this does not affect our analysis.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Consistent with Phillips, we begin with the “ordinary and customary meaning” of the words of the claims. Phillips, 415. F.3d at 1312–13 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The parties agree that the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase “background object” is consistent with the dictionary definition and means an object that is “not in the foreground.” Tr. 8:10–16; PO Resp. 8–9; Ex. 2008 (AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 2006); see also Ex. 2009 (“the scenery or ground behind something,” “the part of a painting representing what lies behind objects in the foreground”) (MERRIAM- WEBSTER DICTIONARY 2007); Ex. 2010 (“the part of a picture or pattern that is behind the main people or things in it” (MACMILLIAN ENGLISH DICTIONARY 2007); Ex. 2011 (“the ground or parts, as of a scene, situated in the rear (opposed to foreground)”) (RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY 2005). Having determined the ordinary and customary meaning, we need only look to see if there is some reason—such as the applicant acting as a lexicographer or the ordinary and customary meaning being improperly subjective—why the ordinary and customary meaning is not controlling.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We do not find that the prosecution history demonstrates that the applicant acted as a lexicographer by “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,” or “clearly express[ing] an intent to define the term” as required by Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. Instead, the language in the prosecution history is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning. That is, the applicant focuses on the location of the object relative to the area of game play, i.e., the foreground. For example, the applicant distinguishes Chu’s object as not being “background objects” because they “are featured in the forefront of [the] game play as primary objects to be manipulated or used during game play (see Chu at ¶¶ [0063]–[0065]).” Ex. 1002, 85 (emphasis added).12 The applicant continued by arguing that Chu’s objects “exist in the background, outside of the primary focus of game play and as unexpectedly interactive components, and are not themselves needed or required in order to play the game.” Id. If anything, this demonstrates an intent of the applicant to use the customary and ordinary meaning—not in the foreground—and not act as a lexicographer.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument. Under our rules, “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). We have reviewed Dr. Zagal’s testimony on this subject (see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 156–160, 163, 166, 172, 177–178) and find that it complies with our requirements. Specifically, Dr. Zagal provides his opinion and identifies specific evidence in the record that supports it. We do not find MarkForged, a nonprecedential decision, persuasive. Although MarkForged cites 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) as support for the proposition that expert testimony “is entitled to little to no weight [if] it merely parrots the Petition,” the rule is silent on that point. Patent Owner has not directed us to any rule or precedential decision that says that non- 17 The decision was affirmed by the Director. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022). conclusory testimony which cites underlying factual support, such as Dr. Zagal gives in this proceeding, is entitled to no weight.” slip op. at 49

  Patent outcomesUS 8,688,089 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,688,089
• Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Eyesmatch Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,109
• Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Eyesmatch Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,109

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.