- Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00858 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–7 and 16–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 102 or § 103 because the cited references failed to disclose the claimed closure retention mechanism.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. “closure retention mechanism” Trove proposes that “closure retention mechanism” should be construed as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). See Pet. 18–19; Pet. Reply 1. CamelBak agrees. See PO Resp. 8. Indeed, subsequent to our institution decision, the district court in the parallel action held that the “closure retention mechanism” is a means-plus-function term governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). See Ex. 2010, at 5–6. We see no reason to depart from that holding and adopt the district court’s reasoning in that regard as our own. See id. at 6–8.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with CamelBak that the plain language of the claim imposes a temporal condition on when the closure is received by the closure retention mechanism, namely, only after it is removed from the drink spout. In other words, the closure cannot be in engagement with, i.e., “received by,” the closure retention mechanism while it remains on the drink spout. This interpretation is consistent with the specification, which repeatedly states that spaced-apart tabs 56 “engage” the closure when it is removed from the spout and moved to the stowed position. Ex. 1001, 8:58–60 (“tabs 56 . . . are configured to selectively engage and retain, or otherwise grip, the closure in the stowed position”); 9:32–39 (“when the closure is positioned between and/or otherwise in engagement with the tabs, the tabs engage the closure across the maximum width, such as with the tabs resiliently deflecting, bending, or compressing to accommodate the greater width of the closure”); 11:36–39 (“the closure retention mechanism 54 may be configured to engage . . . the closure to operatively retain the closure in its stowed configuration.”); 13:26–31 (“When the closure is operatively positioned within the closed perimeter of the handle into its stowed position . . . such closure is compressed slightly.”) (emphases added). Moreover, the specification describes this engagement as occurring by means of a “friction-fit” or “snap-fit” arrangement (id. at 8:50–52, 14:33– 36), which confirms that the closure is not permanently engaged with the tabs, but rather moved into engagement with the tabs, i.e., “received by the closure retention mechanism” per the plain language of the claim. Thus, the intrinsic evidence—the claim language and the specification—supports a construction that imposes a temporal condition on the recited function of the claimed “closure retention mechanism” such that it receives the closure only after the closure has been removed from the drink spout, meaning the closure is not engaged with the closure retention mechanism before it is selectively removed from the drink spout.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“3. “retain the closure in a stowed position” CamelBak contends that this limitation should be construed to mean “to hold or keep the closure in a position removed from the drink spout.” PO Resp. 13–14; PO Sur-Reply 4. Although Trove contends that CamelBak’s construction “impermissibly rewrites” the claim language, Trove nonetheless “does not disagree that it encompasses ‘hold or keep the Indeed, the claim language itself already contemplates just such a construction by expressly reciting that the closure retention mechanism “selectively retain[s] the closure in a stowed position relative to the handle when the closure is selectively removed from the drink spout.” Ex. 1001, 18:63–66 (emphasis added). As such, we determine that further construction of this limitation is not necessary to resolve the present dispute.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Trove proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had— an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products . . . [and that] [m]ore work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–30). 2 US 9,272,822 B2, issued Mar. 1, 2016 (Ex. 1004, “Samartgis”). 3 EP 2 177 447 A1, published Apr. 21, 2010 (Ex. 1011, “Gorskey”). 4 US 2006/0006578 A1, published Jan. 12, 2006 (Ex. 1012, “Johnson”). 5 US 7,753,240 B2, issued July 13, 2010 (Ex. 1005, “Leoncavallo”). 6 US D586,184 S, issued Feb. 10, 2009 (Ex. 1006, “Miller”). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or the equivalent coursework and approximately one year of experience with liquid-containing devices, with more work experience substituting for less education and vice versa. See PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 61–68). Because CamelBak simply paraphrases Trove’s slightly more detailed definition of the level of skill in the art, we adopt Trove’s definition, as it appears reasonable and consistent with the asserted prior art and the ’252 patent.” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 8,905,252 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,905,252 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00714 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: Goldenberg anticipates or renders claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–19 obvious, and Goldenberg with Cruz-Hernandez renders claims 7, 14, and 20 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’907 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:14–62. Because we discern no dispositive difference between the parties’ proposals, and neither party has argued that the choice between the two would affect the outcome,6 we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for this decision. We note, however, that our decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“to,” as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15, to “require[] a cause-and-effect relationship between a secondary event (e.g., a haptic effect) that occurs in reaction to a first event (e.g., entry of the user input element to one or more positions within the boundary range of positions).” PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 44). Patent Owner argues that “in response to” refers to more than just a coincidence and involves at least some degree of causality. Id. at 27 (citing American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex. 2007, 12–14 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2008, 7 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2006, 30:13–31:2, 32:8–11, 32:17– 21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)); PO Sur-reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 2009, 34:8–19, 36:5–21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“to,” as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15, to “require[] a cause-and-effect relationship between a secondary event (e.g., a haptic effect) that occurs in reaction to a first event (e.g., entry of the user input element to one or more positions within the boundary range of positions).” PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 44). Patent Owner argues that “in response to” refers to more than just a coincidence and involves at least some degree of causality. Id. at 27 (citing American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex. 2007, 12–14 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2008, 7 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2006, 30:13–31:2, 32:8–11, 32:17– 21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)); PO Sur-reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 2009, 34:8–19, 36:5–21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)).” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 10,627,907 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,627,907 - Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00753 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 12 is unpatentable as obvious over Kennewick and Ross because their combination teaches each limitation and a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine them with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“A. Legal Principles “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The burden of production, however, may shift between the petitioner and patent owner as arguments and evidence are presented during the proceeding. Id. A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.2 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a POSITA pertaining to the ’160 patent “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of speech and natural language-interfaces for interacting with and directing computer systems and software, including speech recognition and processing (and more experience could substitute for less formal education, and vice versa).” Pet. 10; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 11–15. Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. generally. We determine that Petitioner’s proposed skill level is consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’160 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. In addition, we find the skill level consistent with the education and experience that a POSITA would have had. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (citing factors to consider when determining level of ordinary skill in the art). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed skill level to apply in this proceeding.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“After review of the evidence, we determine that the record does not support Patent Owner’s construction of “expected contexts” as “a subset of the contexts in a context stack.” PO Resp. 16–17. The sole mention of “expected contexts” in the ’160 patent’s description is the following: “The knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may access a set of expected contexts that are stored in a context stack to determine a most likely context.” Ex. 1001, 13:66–14:2. This statement does not provide any definition for “expected contexts.” Although the ’160 patent’s description mentions a “set,” this is not the same as a “subset” as Patent Owner proposes in its construction. Similarly, claims 1, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’160 patent recite “one or more expected contexts” but do not elaborate further on what an “expected context” is. Likewise, “expected contexts” were mentioned but not discussed or defined in the prosecution history of the ’160 patent. Ex. 1012, 281, 305, 382. Consequently, we decline to restrict the construction of “one or more expected contexts” as Patent Owner proposes. To the extent that Patent Owner so argues, we do not consider “expected contexts” to require the use of “context specific matchers.” In this regard, the ’160 patent states that “knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may use context specific matchers that are able to identify context such as time, location, numbers, dates, categories (e.g., music, movies, television, addresses, etc.) and other context.” Ex. 1001, 14:2–6 (emphasis added). Hence, the ’160 patent states that “contexts” may be identified using “context specific matchers” but this is not required. We further decline to interpret “one or more expected contexts” to exclude “possible contexts” as Patent Owner argues. Simply put, we find no support in the ’160 patent or elsewhere that “expected contexts” cannot be “possible contexts” or that the two terms are mutually exclusive of one another. Although the ’160 patent mentions scoring “possible contexts” (Ex. 1001, 21:7–9), we find no reason why these “possible contexts” cannot also be “expected contexts.” Although we agree with Petitioner that “expected contexts” are ones” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“motivations to combine with reasonable expectation of success. However, in its Sur-reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination “makes no sense” because Ross’s contexts are arranged in order by recency of access such that no scoring is required to find a selected context, whereas Kennewick scores every context in the context stack to select a context. PO Sur-reply 9–10. Patent Owner further argues that Ross’s context grammars are fixed whereas Kennewick’s are dynamic according to prior utterances, and that Ross’s search ends upon finding a match whereas Kennewick scores the entire context stack. Id. at 10. Patent Owner’s late arguments, to which Petitioner has not had an opportunity to respond, do not undermine Petitioner’s proposed motivations to combine with reasonable expectation of success. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner’s arguments hinge on its assertion that “expected contexts” are not scored and are dynamic, but the ’160 patent does not define “expected contexts” in this way. See § III.C, supra. Furthermore, we do not agree that Ross’s search necessarily ends upon finding a match or that Kennewick and Ross are otherwise incompatible. See Inst. Dec. 19–22. Thus, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Kennewick and Ross with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed invention. 4.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 7,640,160 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,640,160 - PTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · PGR2025-00002 · APJ Frederick C Laney · PGR · Adverse judgment
After Patent Owner disclaimed claims 1–78, the Board granted its motion for adverse judgment and terminated the post-grant review.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under our rules, “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” which includes “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). See Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“there is no claim remaining for trial . . . when, as here, all of the challenged claims have been cancelled”). Thus, actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include cancellation of patent claims such that a party has no remaining claim in the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Because Patent Owner has disclaimed all challenged claims such that no claims remain in the trial, we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate by Adverse Judgment.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 12,134,952 - Prime Time Toys LLC / Prime Time Toys Ltd. et al. v. Spin Master, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2023-01339 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4–9, 12, and 14 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a reason to combine Peev and Spitballs.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedOther
“We agree that the three definitions are similar. The parties do not advocate for any particular definition. We also determine that no distinction between the definitions is material to this Decision. As such, we do not repeat all three definitions and accept Patent Owner’s definition as most closely fitting the legal requirements: a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial design, or equivalent, with at least one year of relevant experience designing projectile launching systems but would also be a member of a team, which would include a person with a bachelor’s in materials science, chemistry, or equivalent (e.g., chemical engineering), or has at least one year experience working with materials for use in consumer products equivalent work experience may substitute for educational experience, and vice versa” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner or Patent Owner advocate for the construction of any particular claim term. Pet. 20–21; see generally PO Resp. We determine that no terms require express construction. 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 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“conducting this kind of basic muzzle energy analysis—a conventional, even industry standard technique at the time—would not have concluded that the polymer balls that Spitballs teaches are a safer form of ammunition simply because they are softer than lightweight airsoft rounds,” because the record supports it. Ex. 2015 ¶ 59. slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“that softer ammunition was a possible solution and that Vat19 shows Spitballs exploding on contact with a person without harm. Reply 28–30 (citing Paper 12, 16–17; PO Resp. 63). However, we agree with Patent Owner, that Kim and Vat19 do not disclose all of the limitations of the claims. PO Resp. 61–62; PO Sur-reply 26; Ex. 1004, 302:7–22; Ex. 1022, 8, 9; Ex. 1024; Ex. 2007, 100 (ALJ concluding “there is no disclosure that [Kim’s] gel material is a SAP”); Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 236–239. Petitioner makes no assertions to the contrary. See Pet. 57–60; Reply 28–30. As discussed above, the full record does not support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Peev and Spitballs for the reasons asserted by Petitioner. Petitioner’s insufficient evidence of simultaneous invention does not overcome that deficiency.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 8,640,683 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,640,683 - Prime Time Toys LLC / Prime Time Toys Ltd. et al. v. Spin Master, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2023-01348 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 2, 3, 5–15, 17, and 19–21 not shown unpatentable over Spitballs and Peev because the evidence did not establish an obvious reason to use the SAP ammunition in Peev’s airsoft gun.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“After the Petition was filed, Patent Owner disclaimed independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 of the ’282 patent. Prelim. Resp. 26; Ex. 2013. Accordingly, we need not reach Petitioner’s challenges to claims 1 and 4. E.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e). Thus, the remaining challenged claims are claims 2, 3, 5–15, 17, and 19–21.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“that were proposed in the ITC proceeding as “similar” and noting the ITC ALJ’s determination that “all of the proposals are appropriate,” Petitioner does not argue for the application of any particular level of skill in the art in this proceeding. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1015, 8). We too find the definitions advanced in the ITC proceeding similar. Indeed, any differences between the definitions do not rise to a level that would affect our analysis of whether the Petition and associated evidence are sufficiently persuasive for purposes of institution. In our view, the foregoing level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Patent Owner in the ITC proceeding best fits the legal requirements. Accordingly, we adopt and apply that level of ordinary skill in the art in our analysis of the merits.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties’ arguments and evidence do not raise any issues that necessitate an express claim construction in order to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we need not and do not expressly construe any claim language. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“success in an airsoft gun such as Peev, including rubber, cork, foam, and soft plastics, such as SAPs.” Ex. 1016 ¶ 78; Pet. 37. For multiple reasons, this testimony fails to support Petitioner’s suggestion that using SAP ammunition in Peev’s airsoft gun was among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. For example, because Mr. Delman does not support this testimony with objective supporting evidence, it is not entitled to persuasive weight in Petitioner’s favor. Ex. 1016 ¶ 78; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Additionally, even if Mr. Delman substantiated his view that an ordinarily skilled artisan “could have considered” SAPs as airsoft ammunition, that would not persuade us that SAPs were identified, predictable solutions for airsoft ammunition.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 8,371,282 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,371,282 - Prime Time Toys LLC / Prime Time Toys Ltd. et al. v. Spin Master, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2023-01461 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 13, and 15–20 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a sufficient motivation to combine Peev and Spitballs, including with Moorhouse.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties do not address the adopted level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Based on the full record, we maintain and affirm that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had: a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial design, or equivalent, with at least one year of relevant experience designing projectile launching systems but would also be a member of a team, which would include a person with a chemical engineering), or has at least one year experience working with materials for use in consumer products and that “equivalent work experience may substitute for educational experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 21–22 (quoting Ex. 1015, 7–8); see also Ex. 1016 ¶ 55 (stating that “Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s definitions of the [person of ordinary skill in the art] are similar, and my opinions in this Declaration would not change if I used Patent Owner’s definition of the [person of ordinary skill in the art] rather than Petitioner’s definition”). We find that the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’255 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any interpretation for any claim term. Pet. 23; see PO Resp. Petitioner notes that the ALJ in the ITC proceeding construed two terms used in the ’282 and ’683 patents, specifically “super absorbent polymer” and “a firing mechanism that directly applies a force to the ammunition.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1015, 12, 14). Based on the full record, we determine that no term requires express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to 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
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“we give little weight to the opinion of Dr. Courtney on whether Spitballs would have been considered liquid filled by one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply 15–16; PO Sur-reply 18; Ex. 1037 ¶ 55; Ex. 2121, 61:12–13; see also PO Sur-reply 14–15 (arguing that Dr. Courtney does not meet the adopted level of ordinary skill in the art). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s list of “rubber, cork, foam, and soft plastics, such as SAPs” “does not exclude all of the other types of materials Petitioner failed to address—e.g., the gelatin materials used to make paintballs.” PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2117, 1). The “openended” list “has no meaningful evidentiary support” because the cited paragraphs from its declaration “make no reference at all to potential airsoft ammunition.” Pet. 38; PO Resp. 24; Ex. 1016 ¶ 77; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 36–39, 46– 48. Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Reitman also “acknowledged that airsoft considerations are beyond the scope of her testimony.” Ex. 2030, 117:17– 118:20. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s list would include “countless distinct polymers.” PO Resp. 25; Ex. 2120, 27–28.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“In other words, Petitioner does not squarely address the testimonial evidence that the softness of Spitballs would not have been equated with safety, because of its higher weight and kinetic energy. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 44–55. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not assert fragmentation and deformation would have overcome the greater kinetic energy of the heavier Spitballs, and that Petitioner’s declarant admitted such calculation was not done. PO Sur-reply 7 (citing Ex. 2121, 48:11–49:7); Ex. 2121, 48:11–49:7 (Petitioner’s declarant testifying that calculations of how much kinetic energy is absorbed when Spitballs bounce or explode were not done). Petitioner’s declarant also identified that back splatter can create an additional safety concern. Ex. 2121, 101:14–104:4. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner failed to discuss the deformation and fragmentation of Spitballs in its Petition and declarations. PO Sur-reply 6 (citing Pet. Reply 10–11; Ex. 1037 ¶ 43). We also agree that Petitioner did not explain how one of ordinary skill in the art could have reliably assessed the safety of Spitballs and airsoft rounds. Id.; see also Ex. 2121, 47:1–48:10 (Petitioner’s declarant testifying that experimentation would be the best way to quantify how much kinetic energy is absorbed through deformation and fragmentation of a given projectile). focused on the mass and diameter calculations provided by Petitioner’s declarant, and Petitioner has the burden to analyze a projectile other than the one disclosed in Spitballs, not Patent Owner. PO Sur-reply 10–11 (citing Pet. Reply 13; Ex. 1017 ¶ 67; Ex. 2015 ¶ 59). Petitioner failed to do such an analysis of a 6mm Spitball or SAP projectile. Regarding Petitioner’s reliance on deposition testimony from the ITC proceedings, as argued by Patent Owner, its declarant agreed that making ammunition softer would make injury less likely, if all other parameters were equal, not larger and heavier like a substitution with Spitballs. PO Resp. 16–17 (citing Pet. 37; Ex. 1004, 531:25–532:9; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 60–61); Ex. 1017 ¶ 67 (Petitioner’s declarant opining that Spitballs can “grow up to 200 times their original size” to reach a mass of 1.844g); Ex. 1037 ¶ 39 (Petitioner’s declarant agreeing that “when all other variables are held constant, heavier is less safe, meaning injury potential is increased”); Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 54–59 (Patent Owner’s declarant opining that heavier and softer ammunition can pose more injury risk); Ex. 2016, 11 (indicating that airsoft ammunition typically comes in weights from 0.12g to 0.25g). We, thus, agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to prove that” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,596,255 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,596,255 - Skullcandy, Inc. v. Earin ABInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00690 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Director review
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 20 and 21 were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that, for the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus decline to institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“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) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed.Cir.1986)).” slip op. at 7
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Analysis of the Parties’ Contentions We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition is conclusory––the Cooperstock Declaration merely reiterates the position set forth in the Petition and does not provide sufficient detail or explanation of why Olodort’s “low power state” would have been understood by a POSITA to mean that “existing connections to a second wireless earbud and to a wireless audio streaming host device will be disconnected,” as recited in claim 20. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 84–87. We further agree that claim 38 is not directed to entering “a standby mode” as it recites “the low power state is a standby mode from which the second earpiece is awakened in response to detecting that the second earpiece has been attached to an ear.” Ex. 1002, claim 38 (emphasis added). As such, we agree with Patent Owner that Olodort’s “claim 38 contains no disclosure concerning what happens to ‘existing connections’ when exiting, let alone entering, the ‘standby mode.’” See Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1002, claims 32, 34, 38). We further agree with Patent Owner that the Cooperstock Declaration in paragraphs 86 and 87 sets forth an alternative obviousness theory “based on a modification to Olodort to add ‘circuitry for disconnecting the earbuds from one another and from any wireless audio streaming host device when in the low power state’” that is improperly incorporated by reference into the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (emphasis added) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (A petition for inter partes review “may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for challenged to each claim.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another.”)). As such, we need not and do not consider this alternative obviousness theory.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner
“Analysis of the Parties’ Contentions We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition is conclusory––the Cooperstock Declaration merely reiterates the position set forth in the Petition and does not provide sufficient detail or explanation of why Olodort’s “low power state” would have been understood by a POSITA to mean that “existing connections to a second wireless earbud and to a wireless audio streaming host device will be disconnected,” as recited in claim 20. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 84–87. We further agree that claim 38 is not directed to entering “a standby mode” as it recites “the low power state is a standby mode from which the second earpiece is awakened in response to detecting that the second earpiece has been attached to an ear.” Ex. 1002, claim 38 (emphasis added). As such, we agree with Patent Owner that Olodort’s “claim 38 contains no disclosure concerning what happens to ‘existing connections’ when exiting, let alone entering, the ‘standby mode.’” See Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1002, claims 32, 34, 38). We further agree with Patent Owner that the Cooperstock Declaration in paragraphs 86 and 87 sets forth an alternative obviousness theory “based on a modification to Olodort to add ‘circuitry for disconnecting the earbuds from one another and from any wireless audio streaming host device when in the low power state’” that is improperly incorporated by reference into the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (emphasis added) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (A petition for inter partes review “may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for challenged to each claim.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another.”)). As such, we need not and do not consider this alternative obviousness theory.” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,402,120 - Under Armour, Inc. v. Athalonz, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00636 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Kim; the Board did not reach the four other instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the full record, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill is reasonable and consistent with the ’786 patent and the asserted prior art. Thus, for these reasons, we adopt Petitioner’s level of skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Based on the full record, we maintain that it is unnecessary to explicitly construe “athletic positioning” because its meaning is already captured in the claim through the recitation of the relationship between the various slopes of the sole that provide “athletic positioning” of the foot. See Ex. 1001, 44:2–14. The recitations of a “first slope,” “second slope,” “third slope,” and “reference slope” translate into the relative heights proposed in adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it incorporates the specification’s consistent descriptions of “athletic positioning” in terms of relative heights and slopes. For example, one embodiment of an “athletic positioning shape” is where “the heel platform may be 10 to 30 mm higher” than “the toe cup and/or the ball of foot cup.” [Ex. 1001], 13:38–45. Another embodiment discloses “an athletic positioning sole that includes an overall geometric shape” including “the heel of the sole [at] a particular height (e.g., h1, which may be 1’s to 10’s of mm) that slopes at an angle (e.g., Ø1) to the toe on the inside edge of the sole” which “may have a height of zero to a few millimeters.” Id., 17:54–62. PO Resp. 29. However, we find Patent Owner’s contention regarding particular heights and specific angles attempts to import limitations from the Specification into claims. Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, 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.”). Based on the full record, we determine that express claim construction of “athletic positioning” is not necessary to resolve the present dispute. 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
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“8. Conclusion for Ground 1 We have considered all of the arguments and evidence adduced at trial. For the reasons explained, we find Petitioner has persuasively demonstrated that Kim teaches or suggests all limitations of claims 1–8. We also find that the value of Patent Owner’s objective evidence of non-obviousness is weak in comparison to the evidence regarding the prior art under the first three Graham factors. Accordingly, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–8 of the ’786 patent would have been obvious over Kim.” slip op. at 39
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Based on the full record, we determine that Patent Owner fails to show nexus between the claimed invention and the asserted objective indicia of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 70–78; PO Sur-reply 25–28. Other than asserting that “the requisite nexus exists here” (PO Resp. 71), and citing to the Declaration testimony of Mr. Markison (id. (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 322)), the Patent Owner response does not provide an analysis of Patent Owner’s product with respect to the claims of the ’768 patent, and thus does not demonstrate nexus. To the extent Patent Owner references Mr. Markison’s testimony, Mr. Markison’s testimony consists solely of the statement that Patent Owner “sells and markets golf and baseball shoes that embody the claims of the ’786 patent” with reference to an exhibit from district court litigation. See Ex. 2008 ¶ 322 (citing Ex. 2014). We find Patent Owner’s reliance on Mr. Markison’s testimony to be insufficient to establish a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Thus, Patent Owner is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of nexus, because Patent Owner has not shown that the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product that is the disclosed and claimed invention. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Patent Owner also does not provide any evidence that the asserted” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,674,786 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,674,786 - Under Armour, Inc. v. Athalonz, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 10, 2025 · IPR2024-00638 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 6–8, and 11 as obvious over Kim, and claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 as obvious over Kim and De Obaldia.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art would have (1) at least a B.S. or equivalent degree related to industrial or product design and at least two years’ experience designing or developing athletic shoes; or (2) at least five years designing or developing athletic shoes. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 31). Petitioner adds, however, that “the claims are obvious in view of any reasonable definition of a POSITA [(Person of Skill in the Art)].” Id. Patent Owner responds that “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 23 (citing Pet. 15). Patent Owner adds that Mr. Markison’s “knowledge and experience, which includes 13 years of designing and developing athletic shoes that embody the patent at issue here, far exceeds the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 43–44). Based on the full record, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill is reasonable and consistent with the ’760 patent and the asserted prior art. Thus, for these reasons, we adopt Petitioner’s level of skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In the Institution Decision, we declined to explicitly construe “athletic positioning” because we determined it was unnecessary in view of the claim language. Inst. Dec. 8. More particularly, we stated “independent claim 1 already appears to itself define the term ‘athletic positioning.’ In particular, the claim recites that the big toe area is at a lower position than the heel area and the small toe area.” Id. Based on the full record, we maintain that it is unnecessary to explicitly construe “athletic positioning” because its meaning is already captured in the claim through the recitation of the relationship between the various slopes of the sole that provide “athletic positioning” of the foot. See Ex. 1001, 43:17–27, 43:30–40. The recitations setting forth a relationship between a “big toe area,” a “heel area,” and a “small toe area” translate into the relative heights proposed in Patent Owner’s construction. Patent Owner contends that the Board should adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it:” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and Patent Owner’s counterarguments and find, on the complete trial record, that Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Kim teaches or suggests “a foot platform that provides an athletic positioning of a big toe area at a lower position than a heel area,” as called for by claim 1. In this regard, we credit Mr. Delgatty’s Declaration testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that, when worn, the toe area would be on the ground, and thus lower than the heel, and based on the sloped forefoot, the big toe would be lower than the small toe.” Pet. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶ 16). We also credit Mr. Delgatty’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “that the shape and orientation of the sole (i.e., the platform on which an athlete stands) in relation to the ground is what determines if the foot is placed in an athletic position when in use.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶ 23). We find Mr. Delgatty’s opinion to be reasonable and supported by Kim’s disclosure. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 43, 44. Here, as Petitioner points out, “the ’760 patent distinguishes between the ‘sole’ and ‘cleats’ as separate components of the shoe” (Pet. Reply 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:62–64)), and claim 1 only “requires that the forefoot platform of the sole provide the big toe area at a lower position than the heel area and the small toe area” (id. (citing Ex. 1022 ¶ 20)). When asked during deposition, Mr. Markison confirmed that “cleats” or “sport-specific bottom 190” may be “different item[s] in the shoe than the athletic-positioning sole.” Ex. 1023, 85:18–22. specific bottom,” it is not limited to a spike or cleat pattern, but also recites that it may be a “sport specific tread pattern.” Ex. 1001, 44:13–19. Based on the full record, we agree with Petitioner that “[w]hether or not a shoe has cleats, an athlete’s foot will be positioned the same with respect to the surface of the ground when in use, and thus obtain the same positioning benefits the ’760 patent purports to provide.” Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶ 22). Accordingly, upon review of the information in the Petition and” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Based on the full record, we determine that Patent Owner fails to show nexus between the claimed invention and the asserted objective indicia of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 69–77; PO Sur-reply 26–29. Other than asserting that “the requisite nexus exists here” (PO Resp. 70), and citing to the Declaration testimony of Mr. Markison (id. (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 285)), Patent Owner’s response does not provide an analysis of Patent Owner’s product with respect to the claims of the ’760 patent, and thus does not demonstrate nexus. To the extent Patent Owner references Mr. Markison’s testimony, Mr. Markison’s testimony consists solely of the statement that Patent Owner “sells and markets golf and baseball shoes that embody the claims of the ’760 patent” with reference to an exhibit from district court litigation. See Ex. 2008 ¶ 285 (citing Ex. 2014). We find Patent Owner’s reliance on Mr. Markison’s testimony to be insufficient to establish a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Thus, Patent Owner is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of nexus, because Patent Owner has not shown that claimed invention. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Patent Owner also does not provide any evidence that the asserted objective indicia of nonobviousness is the direct result of unique characteristics of the claimed invention. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75; PO Resp. 69–77; PO Sur-reply 26–29. At best, Patent Owner merely implies that they are the result of unique characteristics of the claimed shoe. For our analysis below, even if nexus were shown, we identify additional reasons why we would give little weight to the asserted objective indicia of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 11,064,760 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,064,760
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.