• Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00651 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9–20 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . 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) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 11

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

    “target value” is part of a command that is sent from a computing device to a server and then to a controller. The controller then receives a measurement of the fluid by a sensor and determines whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” If the measurement does not satisfy the “target value,” further operations are undertaken. The recited operation sequence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” is not as Dr. Wooley opines because the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time is represented by the measurement taken by the sensor, 11 Some claim language less relevant to construing “target value” was omitted for ease of reference. which the controller then uses to determine whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” Additionally, claim 1 recites that the “target value” is sent as part of a command to the controller. The “target value” is not sent to the controller from the sensor, as might be expected if the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” were as Dr. Wooley opines. Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s construction would also result in “target value” meaning effectively the same thing as the measurement of the fluid by the sensor, a concept that is separately recited in claim 1 and to which the “target value” is compared. The Specification of the ’680 patent does not support Petitioner’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value.” Although the Specification does not recite “target value,” it recites “target state,” and describes “target state” sufficiently to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “target” as used in “target value” and “target state.” In particular, the ’680 patent explains that “[i]n some embodiments, the process 104 includes receiving, via a network interface, from a remote user device, (e.g., via a command-center server) a command to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state.” Ex. 1001, 11:48–51. This portion reflects that the command is seeking to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state. In other words, the “target value” or “target state” is not generally “the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time”; rather, it is a value or state that the fluid-handling device is desired to be in, as Patent Owner and Dr. Durham explain. Additionally, just as claim 1 recites a directional component for the “target value” to be sent to the controller in a command, so too does the Specification describe a “target state” as being sent in a command from a remote user device. Thus, the Specification clearly supports the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Patent Owner and Dr. Durham and not the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Wooley. slip op. at 14

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

    “time-stamped process data, report exception therein to the remote host, and extract and transmit time-stamped process data to the remote host.” Ex. 1005, Abst. (emphases added). Almadi explains that its remote field systems must include a plurality of controller units “to issue commands to, and gather and process data from a plurality of field devices, including remote systems and instruments, . . . [and] a database server for the storage of process data retrieved from the remote subsystems and instruments.” Id. at 2:22–30 (emphases added). Based on these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established that Almadi discloses element [1.4]. Specifically, the teachings from Almadi identified by Petitioner refer to process data, which is data retrieved from the remote subsystems/field devices. Thus, we understand that Almadi’s teaching—of using an Ethernet switch to transmit “process data”—describes transmitting data from the remote subsystems/field devices. See Ex. 1005, 3:13–17, cited in Pet. 15. But claim 1 and particularly element [1.4], recites “sending, with the server, the target value to the network address [which identifies a controller of the fluid-handling device13] via the network,” which is different than sending process data from the field devices to the remote host or database server for storage.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,175,680
• Tanklogix, LLC v. SiteproInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00650 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–32 and 34 were unpatentable over Kahn or Kahn and Gutierrez.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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) (2024). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’871 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 18–32 and 34 of the ’871 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The respective proposed levels of qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art are similar, with Patent Owner proposing two years of experience compared to Petitioner proposing significant experience with remotely controlling fluid-handling devices, like SCADA systems. Patent Owner also proposes more extensive experience in lieu of educational experience. While we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications to be acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’871 patent and the asserted prior art. Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the qualifications adopted.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “actuators and the remote control of fluid handling devices, including the receipt with the user-interface module of “a user command to actuate an actuator via a presented control interface” (limitation [18.7]) and “account authorized to send commands to remotely control fluid handling devices” (limitation [18.11]). We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses or teaches these limitations because the evidence does not provide support that there is remote control of fluid handling devices or the use of a user command on a control interface to send a command to a fluid handling device, for instance. Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but we do not discern that it teaches or discloses the capability to remotely control fluid handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, the Kahn disclosures that Petitioner repeatedly relies upon for allegedly teaching this control are deficient. See Ex. 1005, 10:62–67, 14:35– 15:2, 15:62–16:32; see also Pet. 12–14, 16–18. Kahn discloses that “the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance.” Ex. 1005, 10:62–67. Communication unit 112B is part of the local “sensor unit,” wherein the detection conditions determined by the sensor are communicated to remote devices by communication unit 112B. See id. at 3:31–33, 5:62–6:2, 6:27–35, 7:33–37, 13:7–12, Figs. 1A–1C. Kahn discloses that the sensor units, which include communication units 112B, can be located near shut-off valves and can communicate with distant locations. See id. at 11:1–13. There are no disclosures, however, in the above passages that there is remote control of fluid handling devices, that there is a user command on a control interface that actuates an actuator, or that there is a command sent to the facility actuators via a network connection, as required in limitations [18.5]–[18.7] and [18.9]–[18.12], respectively. Rather, the disclosure indicates that the communication unit 112B includes on-site alerts and that the local (non-remote) communication unit 112B can be interfaced with the control valve.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,488,871
• AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. Daingean Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00310 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4–6 and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Lee1 and Lee2; the Board found the Lee1–Lee2 combination teaches the limitations and has sufficient motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), on or around the earliest possible priority date of the ’207 patent, would have had “a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three years of experience designing, developing, and/or testing telecommunication systems” and “familiarity with the wireless standards and well-known protocols for accessing wireless networks,” and that “[m]ore education may supplement practical experience or vice versa.” Pet. 3, 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). In its Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner generally concurs with [Petitioner’s] description, though would propose that a POSITA only needs two years of experience . . . . [but] does not believe any difference between Patent’s Owner’s view and Petitioners’ view affects the unpatentability analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 24. We agree with Patent Owner that the difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s formulations would not affect our analysis of patentability. We adopt Petitioner’s formulation, which is supported by expert testimony and is generally consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and the prior art. See, e.g., Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Looking first at the claim language itself, Patent Owner’s construction is unduly narrow. The “for” recitations derive antecedent basis from limitation 4a. Ex. 1001, 36:44–45. Limitation 4a recites “a 4-step” procedure and “a 2-step” procedure. Thus, the claim includes one of each procedure type: “one” 4-step and “one” 2-step (i.e., single instances of each procedure). Patent Owner similarly reads the claim as requiring “one or more” of each procedure type. See Tr. 33:19–34:4. Because limitation 4a provides antecedent basis for a singular 4-step procedure and a singular 2-step procedure, this strongly suggests that the claim requires for the one (or for the single) 4-step procedure but not for all 4-step procedures, and for the one (or for the single) 2-step procedure but not for all 2-step procedures. At trial, Patent Owner’s interpretation was similar, stating, “that would read. . . as for the one or more 4-step . . . procedure and for the one or more 2-step . . . procedure.” See Tr. 33:25– 34:4 (emphasis added). In seeming contradiction, Patent Owner also stated, “I read that as being . . . all 4-step contention random access procedures . . . and all 2-step random access based procedures.” Id. (emphasis added). We note that Patent Owner does not, however, cite any legal precedent for interpreting “one or more” as requiring “all,” or provide reasoning for departing from the default claim construction principle that “one or more” includes “one.” For this reason and for reasons further discussed below, construing “for the 4-step” to mean “for all 4-step,” and “for the 2-step” to mean “for all 2-step,” would improperly import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).” slip op. at 11

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

    “explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 4 is rendered obvious over Lee1 and Lee2 (“Lee1–Lee2”).” slip op. at 20

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

    “With these teachings in mind, we are persuaded by Petitioner that incorporating Lee2’s higher power and different ramping into Lee1’s 2-step procedure would have even further reduced the latency of Lee1’s 2-step procedure, and that this would have resulted in different power settings based on procedure type. Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89; Reply 12–13. Patent Owner does not meaningfully dispute this point. See generally PO Resp. 37–42; Sur-reply 12–17. Instead, Patent Owner argues that Lee1’s 4-step procedure would “equally benefit” from reducing latency, and that Petitioner has not explained why a POSITA would not use the same power settings for both procedures, i.e., use Lee2’s same higher power and different ramping in Lee1’s 4-step procedure. See PO Resp. 41–42. However, Petitioner’s burden is to provide a motivation for the proposed combination—in this case, modifying Lee1’s 2-step procedure with Lee2’s higher power and lower ramping. The obviousness analysis does not require Petitioner to explain why the references would not have been combined in an alternative way not proposed by Petitioner. To the extent Patent Owner argues that Lee1 and Lee2 cannot be combined as proposed, and therefore must be combined in this alternative manner, we disagree. For example, Patent Owner does not provide evidence of teaching away or that the proposed combination is inoperable. See generally PO Resp. 37–42; Sur-reply 12–17. Furthermore, we do not see how solving any technical issues in combining Lee1 and Lee2 as proposed would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Furthermore, Petitioner explains why a POSITA would have sought to” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,932,207 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,932,207
• Intel Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ)Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00728 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–15, and 17–19 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6, 9, and 16 are not shown unpatentable because the Midya-based grounds fail on the terminal limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the full trial record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’430 patent and the prior art. In adopting this definition, we note that neither the title nor the “Field of the Invention” portions of the ’430 patent limit the invention to integrated circuits, and Patent Owner does not dispute that claim 1 encompasses inductors that are not provided on an integrated circuit. Ex. 1001, code (54), 1:16–22. Additionally, Dr. Prucnal’s definitions have shifted, and his latest definition purports to be based on Dr. Tentzeris’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill, but changes “experience designing integrated circuits or inductors for semiconductors” to “experience designing integrated circuits and inductors for semiconductors” without sufficient explanation of the reasons for the change. Supp. Prucnal Decl. ¶ 8; Reply Tentzeris Decl. ¶ 56. However, our Decision in this case would not change under Patent Owner’s revised articulation. See Reply Tentzeris Decl. ¶ 57 (stating that his opinion would not change under Patent Owner’s revised definition of the level of ordinary skill).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “After considering the full trial record, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “on a semiconductor die” in the preamble of claim 11 is not limiting. First, we determine that the phrase “on a semiconductor die” in claim 11 does not provide antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claim. The body of claim 11 does not refer to “the semiconductor die” or even mention the “semiconductor die” at all, and neither do any of the claims that depend from claim 11. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the phrase “on a semiconductor die” in the preamble of claim 11 provides antecedent basis for the term “the first inductor” in the body of the claim, because the “first inductor” language in the preamble provides antecedent basis for “the first inductor” language in the claim’s body. The “on a semiconductor die” language in the preamble is presented separately and can be easily parsed from the preamble’s language reciting a “first inductor” without impacting the understandability or grammatical completeness of claim 11. Therefore, the “on a semiconductor die” language in claim 11’s preamble is not necessary to provide antecedent basis for the phrase “the first inductor” in the body of claim 11. This use of language in claim 11 is distinguishable from the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Deere v. Bush Hog, cited by Patent Owner, where the preamble term “rotary cutter deck” provided antecedent basis for the term “said deck” recited in the claim body, because in Deere, the words “rotary cutter” appeared directly before, directly modified, and were not easily parsed from the term “deck.” See Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2012); PO Resp. 7–8.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that claims 1 and 11 do not require that the first and second inductor be laterally spaced, but instead merely require that the second inductor be positioned at a “predetermined distance” from the first inductor. Nothing in the claim language restricts this “predetermined distance” from being in the X, Y, or Z direction, or requires that the inductors be laterally spaced in the same plane. Moreover, the fact that the ’430 patent Specification describes embodiments where the inductors are laterally spaced in the same plane does not limit the claims to those embodiments. As explained previously, our reviewing court “has expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906. “Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Id. We see no such “words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction” here. Accordingly, we give the term “predetermined distance” its ordinary meaning, which includes a distance in any direction. The parties do not dispute that Taniguchi’s inductors are spaced apart with an insulation layer in between. Therefore, under the ordinary meaning of the claim language, Taniguchi’s second inductor is “positioned at a predetermined distance from the first inductor.”” slip op. at 26

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with and adopt the ITC’s construction of “closely spaced,” which is “two terminals in proximity to each other (such that the electromagnetic field at a certain distance from the first inductor (where the second inductor is positioned) is reduced.” Ex. 1020, 12. We find that this construction is supported by the intrinsic record, including the Specification of the ’430 patent, which shows terminals being “closely spaced” compared to the dimensions of the inductor itself, and explains that the purpose of the close spacing is to make the field contributions from the two parts of the inductor identical. See Ex. 1005, Figs. 1–2, 4:28–32. Claims 1 and 11 of the ’430 patent lack specific dimensions for either the inductor or the spacing between the terminals, and indicate that the purpose of the close spacing is to “minimiz[e] magnetic field contributions from the terminals.” Ex. 1001, 10:22–25, 11:7–10. Dr. Prucnal’s ITC declaration, although not intrinsic evidence, further supports our conclusion. Although Patent Owner does not propose a construction for “closely spaced terminals,” it appears to argue that this term must be interpreted based on the dimensions of the semiconductor chip described in the ’430 patent. PO Resp. 43. We do not see any basis in the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to impart such a narrow reading to the claim language, particularly because the ’430 patent Specification does not define the “closely spaced terminals” in relation to a semiconductor chip, and claim 1 is not limited to inductors on a semiconductor chip.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 7,151,430 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,151,430
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00701 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 were obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’138 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–14 of the ’138 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner states that “the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary to find the claims unpatentable.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner does not address claim construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “a Ph.D. or master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year or four years, respectively, of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 25–29). Petitioner contends that less work experience can be compensated for by a higher level of experience and vice versa. Id. (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 25). Petitioner also asserts that the proposed level of skill would be the same under any of the United States, Japanese, or PCT application dates. Id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of qualifications for one of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 20. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’138 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

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

    “As discussed above, Petitioner relies upon Parkin, and its layers 115 and 175, as the claimed first and second ferromagnetic material layers, respectively. See Pet. 10, 16. Petitioner admits that these layers are 8 In the Petition, Petitioner refers to the lower electrode “ferromagnetic layer 110’ as discussed in Claim 1[a]” in the discussion of limitation 1[d]. Pet. 18. Petitioner’s reference to “layer 110’” appears to be in error because the Petition’s discussion for limitation 1[a] refers to layer 115 of Parkin, as does Dr. Bokor’s testimony related to limitations 1[a] and 1[d]. Pet. 10; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 109, 136. amorphous, but contends that, as Parkin discloses, these layers may be annealed. Id. at 17. Petitioner, however, refers to Parkin’s disclosure that only “a portion of the storage layer 175” is crystallized after annealing. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1062, 18:51–55) (emphasis added). Petitioner also relies upon Parkin’s “thin crystalline ferromagnetic layer” that is crystallized to teach limitation 1[d]. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1062, 18:55–59; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 131–132) (emphasis added). Dr. Bokor additionally testifies that it is “Parkin’s ‘thin crystalline ferromagnetic layer’ of CoFeB” that meets the “entirely crystallized” requirement of limitation 1[d]. Ex. 1024 ¶ 132. Parkin, however, states that a thin crystalline ferromagnetic layer is formed, but “the bulk of storage layer 175 remains amorphous.” Ex. 1062, 18:55–60 (emphasis added). Petitioner fails to reconcile how its assertions that the first and second ferromagnetic layers, which are mapped to the totality of layers of 115 and 175, meet the limitation that the first and second ferromagnetic layers are each “entirely crystallized” when Petitioner relies only a thin layer, that is, a portion, of the 115 and 175 layers for the teaching that the respective layers are entirely crystallized. Put another way, Petitioner’s mapping is inconsistent: Petitioner relies upon the full depth of certain “layers” of Parkin for the teaching of the ferromagnetic layers, but then only relies upon thin portion of that depth for the assertion that the “layers” are entirely crystallized.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,367,138
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00734 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3 are unpatentable as obvious over Gai, Yip, and Kwan; claims 15, 17, and 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious over those references and Georgiou.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “(1) claims 1 and 3 are unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claims would have been obvious over Gai, Yip, and Kwan; and (2) claims 15, 17, and 19–21 are unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claims would have been obvious over Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou. In summary:9” slip op. at 111

  Patent outcomesUS 7,623,518 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,623,518
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc.Adverse judgment
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00002 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Adverse judgment

  The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–20 after disclaimer and terminated the proceedings.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “DISCUSSION A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” Id. Patent Owner has disclaimed, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321, claims 1–20 of the ’024 patent and claims 1–20 of the ’319 patent, and explicitly requests that the Board enter adverse judgment against it with respect to those claims, the only claims at issue in these trials. Paper 26, 1.” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 11,880,319
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc.Adverse judgment
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00001 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Adverse judgment

  Adverse judgment was entered against Patent Owner on claims 1–20 after statutory disclaimer; the proceedings were terminated.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “DISCUSSION A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” Id. Patent Owner has disclaimed, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321, claims 1–20 of the ’024 patent and claims 1–20 of the ’319 patent, and explicitly requests that the Board enter adverse judgment against it with respect to those claims, the only claims at issue in these trials. Paper 26, 1.” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 11,386,024
• Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC v. Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,574,725
• Reolink Innovation Inc. / Shenzhen Reolink Technology Co., Ltd. v. Throughtek Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00509 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Throughtek-2012 and the Lorex Video; claims 1–3, 6, 10, 12–14, 17, and 18 are also unpatentable under two other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Bims, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’842 patent would have been a person having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of work experience with network and communication technologies. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 15–16). Patent Owner does not provide any proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art. In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’842 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner asserts “no claim elements need a formal construction for purposes of resolving the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 55; Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 701 Fed. Appx. 946, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Petitioner states “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.” Id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1303; 37 C.F.R. §42.100). Patent Owner presents no proposed claim constructions. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS RE47,842 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham

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.