- Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Sep 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00775 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable, including over Carmel and Mattavelli.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“1. Principles of Law A claim is unpatentable under § 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 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 skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, etc.).5 Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds based on obviousness with the principles we identify above in mind.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. at 696–97. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Polish, Google argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field requiring learning computation principles, and two years of work experience in networking or streaming media systems, particularly audio and video, over the Internet. Additional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In the Petition, Google states that it “does not presently contend that any [claim] term requires express construction.” Pet. 6. In response, Withrow acquiesces; in particular, Withrow argues “the Board need not construe any terms of the ’849 Patent. Petitioner does not contend any [claim] terms require express construction.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 6). Based on the preliminary record, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Turning to rationale to combine, Google contends that Carmel and Mattavelli are both directed to processing multimedia data playback “for the appreciation of a user,” while providing the highest perceived audio and video output quality possible in view of system constraints to ensure playback continuity. Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:48–54, 11:9–18, 7:35– 49, Figs. 3D, 6B; Ex. 1004, 2309, 2310). Google argues that both Carmel and Mattavelli pertain to compression of multimedia data using well-known coding and compression standards for video streaming. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:25–26, 11:24–52; Ex. 1004, 2309–2311). Google argues a PHOSITA would appreciate both Carmel and Mattavelli complement each other because Carmel pertains to addressing constraints to available network bandwidth, whereas Mattavalli relates to addressing limits on available processing resources at the client/multimedia player. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003, Abstract, 7:36–41; Ex. 1004, 2309–2312). Google argues that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings in Carmel and Mattavelli to create a more robust streaming system that addresses both bandwidth constraints and client processing limits to provide a best possible playback experience. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 212–215). Google argues that Mattavelli teaches merely optimizing transmission bandwidth is not sufficient and is potentially harmful, which provides an express motivation to combine Carmel’s and Mattavelli’s complementary teachings to ensure that different, related links in the streaming playback chain are optimized together. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 216–217; Ex. 1004, 2310). In addition, Google argues Carmel contains an express disclosure that would have motivated a PHOSITA to combine Carmel with Mattavelli’s complementary teachings because Carmel states that multimedia playback is achieved “preferably with only a minimal necessary transmission and decoding delay.” Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 218; Ex. 1003, 10:50–54). Withrow does not specifically respond to these arguments, except for limitations 1[c.ii] and 1[c.iv] discussed infra. See generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, the burden of persuasion remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Based on the preliminary record, we discern no deficiency in Google’s characterizations of Carmel, Mattavelli, or the general background knowledge in the art. In addition, for purposes of institution, we are persuaded by Dr. Polish’s testimony concerning the relevant disclosures in Carmel and Mattavelli.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,771,849 - PTAB · Sep 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00632 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 are obvious over Yamaguchi-727.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”).1 Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenInstituted
“We disagree. Positioning module 6 to face a “predetermined direction” is a form of preventing movement that falls within the scope of limitation 1b. Moreover, Yamaguchi-727 uses a method for preventing movement of its module 6 in its housing 20, silicone potting material, that is expressly recognized by the Specification of the ’421 patent when it states: “A common technique used to assist in fixturing the electrical sensor device 40 known within the automotive industry is to fill the internal cavity with a coating material such as a neutral silicone or the like for purposes of retaining placement position.” Ex. 1001, 13:56–60. Although the Specification also asserts that the sensor assemblies disclosed in the 421 patent “do not use or require the use of any such coating or filing agents or materials for any fixturing of the electrical sensor device 40,” id. at 13:61–64, limitation 1b merely requires that the “sensor device . . . is disposed within the internal cavity and attached therein to prevent movement of the device within the internal cavity,” id. at 30:25–27. Absent a persuasive argument to the contrary, we preliminarily conclude that Yamaguchi-727’s use of potting material to hold its module 6 in place within its housing 20 meets the requirements of limitation 1b. Both parties are encouraged to adduce intrinsic evidence relating to the meaning of limitation 1b at trial. For all the reasons set forth above, we find that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of proving the Yamaguchi-727 renders claim 1 unpatentable as obvious. 2. Dependent Claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 Petitioner identifies the portions of Yamaguchi-727 that teach the limitations introduced in dependent claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24, all of which ultimately depend from claim 1. Pet. 32–40. Patent Owner relies upon its argument that Petitioner’s showing for claim 1 is deficient as the reason why Petitioner’s challenge to dependent claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 fails. We reject this argument for the reasons stated in Part II.C.1 above. Based on our review of Petitioner’s otherwise uncontested argument and evidence cited in support, we find that Petitioner also establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving that Yamaguchi-727 renders dependent claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 unpatentable as obvious. D. Remaining Challenges” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner complies with the requirement of identifying “[h]ow the claim language is to be construed” by setting forth proposed interpretations of various claim terms in the table above.7 Both cases cited by Patent Owner relate to an issue presented by a petitioner’s alleged inconsistent handling of whether a claim term is subject to interpretation as a means-plus-function element under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Orthopediatrics Corp. v. K2M, Inc., IPR2018-01546, Paper 10 at 11 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019); 10x Genomics, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, IPR2023- 7 Neither party has identified any claim language that might invoke interpretation as a means-plus-function limitation, and we discern no such claim language. Additionally, we do not imply that a petitioner must always propose express interpretations for specific claim language to comply with Rule 42.104(b)(3). Rather, we only note that Petitioner has, by any measure, complied by expressly proposing interpretations for identified claim language.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“We disagree. Positioning module 6 to face a “predetermined direction” is a form of preventing movement that falls within the scope of limitation 1b. Moreover, Yamaguchi-727 uses a method for preventing movement of its module 6 in its housing 20, silicone potting material, that is expressly recognized by the Specification of the ’421 patent when it states: “A common technique used to assist in fixturing the electrical sensor device 40 known within the automotive industry is to fill the internal cavity with a coating material such as a neutral silicone or the like for purposes of retaining placement position.” Ex. 1001, 13:56–60. Although the Specification also asserts that the sensor assemblies disclosed in the 421 patent “do not use or require the use of any such coating or filing agents or materials for any fixturing of the electrical sensor device 40,” id. at 13:61–64, limitation 1b merely requires that the “sensor device . . . is disposed within the internal cavity and attached therein to prevent movement of the device within the internal cavity,” id. at 30:25–27. Absent a persuasive argument to the contrary, we preliminarily conclude that Yamaguchi-727’s use of potting material to hold its module 6 in place within its housing 20 meets the requirements of limitation 1b. Both parties are encouraged to adduce intrinsic evidence relating to the meaning of limitation 1b at trial. For all the reasons set forth above, we find that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of proving the Yamaguchi-727 renders claim 1 unpatentable as obvious. 2. Dependent Claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 Petitioner identifies the portions of Yamaguchi-727 that teach the limitations introduced in dependent claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24, all of which ultimately depend from claim 1. Pet. 32–40. Patent Owner relies upon its argument that Petitioner’s showing for claim 1 is deficient as the reason why Petitioner’s challenge to dependent claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 fails. We reject this argument for the reasons stated in Part II.C.1 above. Based on our review of Petitioner’s otherwise uncontested argument and evidence cited in support, we find that Petitioner also establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving that Yamaguchi-727 renders dependent claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 unpatentable as obvious. D. Remaining Challenges” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,835,421 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00270 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–20 were not shown unpatentable because Hankins did not teach limitation 15.3; claims 1–14 were disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Petitioner’s proposal is supported by the Reddy Declaration and is consistent with the ’595 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s articulation in our obviousness evaluation below.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Beyond plain and ordinary meaning, Petitioner does not propose any term for claim construction. Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not argue any claim construction issue. See generally PO Resp. The argument and evidence provided by the parties regarding limitation 15.3 is dispositive. See Section II.E. below. Our analysis of limitation 15.3 does not turn on any claim construction question. Id. Accordingly, we do not need to construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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))). We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the ’595 patent.” slip op. at 14
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“D. Claims 1–14 as Obvious Over Kommula As already noted, Patent Owner has disclaimed claims 1–14. Ex. 3001. We do not analyze claims 1–14 as the challenge is mooted by the filing of the Statutory Disclaimer.” slip op. at 15
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“350 receiving a request for a listing of “services” from a gateway device and provisioning one or more tunnel servers has not been shown to teach generating “a list of available servers.” There is no persuasive evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion. Petitioner relies on unsupported argument because, at best, Hankins discloses gateway devices 311 and 321, each of which is located in different logical broadcast domains, requesting services from one another. Ex. 1005, 12:9–16. This particular disclosure, however, does not appear to implicate the functionality of Hankins’s controller 350, much less result in controller 350 generating a list of available tunnel servers that would allow gateway devices 311 and 312 to exchange a listing of “services” therebetween. Petitioner’s reliance on Hankins’s controller 350 provisioning additional tunnel servers both to improve performance and without human intervention fares no better. Ex. 1005, 25:45–55. There is no indication in Hankins that this provisioning performed by controller 350 is done in response to receiving a request for a list of available tunnel servers from either gateway device 311 or 312.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,108,595 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,108,595 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00497 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Hankins alone or in the stated combinations with Munger and Treuhaft.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Based on the plain language alone, there are “end-to-end tunnels” which “connect[] the first device and the second device” of the network system. In addition, “the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. As already noted, the parties appear to agree that the specification does not define explicitly an “end-to-end tunnel.” In describing Figure 33 of the ’505 patent, reproduced above in Section I.D.2, the specification describes Figure 33 as illustrating “GVN Tunnel from LAN to EDP to SRV_AP to EPD to LAN. This variation illustrates an end-to-end GVN tunnel(s) between edges of two LANs via one SRV_AP.” Ex. 1001, 33:8–11 (emphasis added). The specification further describes Figure 33 as showing one tunnel between EPD-1 and AP-1. This is joined to a second tunnel between AP-1 and EPD-2. There are three neutral hops within the Third Layer of the GVN represented by NH1, NH2, and NH3 as compared to the 13 hops on the base Internet between EH3 and EH15. Id. at 33:15–19. This disclosure shows the end-to-end GVN tunnel has two hops, one between EPD-1 and AP-1, and one from AP-1 to EPD-2. The intermediate connection at AP-1 teaches the tunnel may be interrupted, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that Figure 33 of the ’505 patent supports a construction requiring the tunnel to be “uninterrupted.” See PO Resp. 9–10; see also Section II.D.2 below (addressing Patent Owner’s “uninterrupted” argument).” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s assertion that an “intermediate tunnel” is not an “endto-end tunnel. See, e.g., PO Sur-reply 20–21 (arguing Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 2 of Hankins teaches only “intermediate tunnels”). Given our claim construction supra, we find Hankins’s tunnels are “end-to-end tunnels” even if they are made of separate segments. Based on our final construction, and for the reasons discussed in Section II above, on this complete record we find that Petitioner has shown that Hankins teaches or suggests limitation 1.3. For completeness, we have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence explaining how Hankins alone or in combination with Munger teaches the remaining limitations of claim 1, and we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis. See Pet. 30–32, 38–44. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Hankins alone or in combination with Munger.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,630,505 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,630,505 - PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00631 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–13, and 15–22 on all five asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. 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 “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’027 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–13, and 15–22) of the ’027 patent, based on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “possessed an undergraduate degree in chemistry, polymers, materials science, chemical engineering (or related field) and one to two years of experience with constructing and manufacturing tires, tire patches, tire decals/stickers and/or the like.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6–11). According to Petitioner, “Additional education could compensate for less practical experience. Conversely, additional practical experience could compensate for less education.” Id. Patent Owner does not provide an alternate definition, but, “Patent Owner does not acquiesce to, and reserves the right to address, [Petitioner’s] definition of a POSA.” Prelim. Resp. 6 n.6. Petitioner’s proposed definition appears to be consistent with the disclosure of the ’027 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. 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 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s contentions that these disclosures indicate that Wilson’s patch would not meet the construction of “barrier material composition.” None of these disclosures even suggests that the base of Wilson’s patch is rigid as Patent Owner suggests. To begin with, the fact that the housing is “more rigid” provides no information about the absolute rigidness of the patch. See Ex. 1009, 9:16–21. As for the disclosure that the patch is contoured (id. at 3:35–67), Patent Owner provides only attorney argument to support its contention that the contour demonstrates that Wilson’s patch must be so rigid that it cannot be meet the claim limitation. In contrast, Petitioner demonstrates that Wilson discloses using the exact same materials described in the challenged patent (see Ex. 1001, 6:33–58 (noting “[e]lastomeric materials useful for forming the intermediate layer 24 include but are not limited to gum rubber, vulcanized natural rubber SBR . . . or comparable materials”); Ex. 1009, 3:49–55 (noting the patch may be constructed from natural rubber (NR), a preferred mixture of chlorobutyl rubber and natural rubber (CR/NR), or a preferred mixture of SBR and natural rubber (SBR/NR)), and provides detailed testimony from its expert to support its contentions (see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–119). On the current record, we find Petitioner’s reasoning and evidence to be persuasive, and find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Willson discloses or teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,124,027 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00557 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 11, 12, and 15–21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rogers and obvious over Rogers.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially the same, are both supported by testimonial evidence, and appear to be consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions addressed in the ’067 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–53. Although Patent Owner’s proposed level is more specific about the nature of the practical or industry experience, neither party has argued that the differences between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“inside” it, the evidence does not support Patent Owner’s position. First, the plain language of independent claim 1 states that the proxy object “compris[es]” the one or more haptic output devices. Ex. 1001, 10:42–43. This is broader than the “within” language of the non-entered amendment. See Ex. 1002, 258. Not only does the evidence fail to show clear disclaimer (see United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 782–83 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), the adoption of broader “comprising” language shows an intent for the claims not to be limited to systems in which the proxy object contains haptic output devices “inside” it. We also do not agree with Patent Owner that the applicant’s attempts during prosecution to distinguish Gonzales are a clear disclaimer of claim scope. The applicant argued that Gonzales’s AR glove, which contained haptic output actuators in it (see, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 80–82, Fig. 3B), was not a “proxy object” as recited in the claims because “the virtual objects and/or visible alterations to the vehicle [the user is sitting in while wearing the 6 Once again, Patent Owner mistakenly references Exhibit 2001. glove] are not overlaid on the AR glove . . . [a]nd the physical portions of the vehicle were visible alterations are overlaid do not include any feedback devices.” Ex. 1002, 287. Thus, the issue raised during prosecution was not whether the AR glove comprised haptic output devices—which it clearly did even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction—but whether the AR glove had modified visual effects displayed on it as per limitation 1D3. slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the above reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a proxy object comprising one or more haptic output devices” as meaning “a physical object that acts as a proxy for a virtual object and that itself contains inside a haptic output device, e.g., an actuator.” PO Resp. 10. Instead, we conclude that no explicit construction is necessary beyond the ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Alternatively, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had used both the camera data and the inertial sensor data in determining the “reloading” haptic effect. Pet. 77; Pet. Reply 19–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 318; Tr. 31:3–10. This is evident in light of Rogers’s disclosures (1) that both sets of data are used to determine the pointing direction of interface object 104 in at least some contexts (Ex. 1010 ¶ 106); and (2) that the “reloading” haptic effect is based on the pointing direction (Ex. 1010 ¶ 105). See Intel Corp., v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[If] there’s a known technique to address a known problem using prior art elements according to their established functions, then there is a motivation to combine.” (internal quotation omitted)). Thus, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Rogers discloses limitation 1D2, and alternatively that limitation 1D2 would have been obvious based on Rogers’s disclosures.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,665,067 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,665,067 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00503 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations did not cure the failure to show the claimed request and routing steps.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’279 patent in January 2001 “would have had a working knowledge of the network communication technologies that are pertinent to the ’279 patent, including network flow allocation in a ring topology.” Pet. 12. More specifically, Petitioner argues, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a master’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to network communications and resource allocations,” where “[a]dditional work experience can substitute for specific educational background, and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner represents that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition” for the purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 5. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’279 patent, and, therefore, we likewise adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Neither party contends that any formal claim construction is necessary. See Pet. 12 (“Petitioner submits that, for the purposes of this proceeding and the grounds presented herein, no claim term requires express construction.”); PO Resp. 4 (“Here, at this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner will apply the ordinary and customary meaning to the ’279 Patent’s claim terms.”). Patent Owner notes, however, that Petitioner had asserted specific constructions in the Cisco litigation for the term “predetermined,” as recited in claims 1, 10, 14–16, and 18, and for the term “quantum.” PO Resp. 4. Specifically, according to Patent Owner, Petitioner proposed that “predetermined” be construed as “determined before the data flow request” and that “quantum” be construed as “an amount of a requested resource by which to increase or decrease.” Id. (citing Ex. 2007). Patent Owner contends asserted prior art combinations disclose or render obvious the challenged claims under these constructions. Id. Because our conclusion that Petitioner has not demonstrated that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable does not turn on the construction of either “predetermined” or “quantum,” there is no need for us to construe those terms. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 12
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We again are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. As an initial matter, we find no argument with respect to “best effort data traffic” or dropped packets in the Petition. See Tr. 12:10–21 (conceding that “the phrase ‘best effort’ was not in the Petition” but arguing that it was raised in response to the Patent Owner Response). Moreover, we are unable to identify any argument in the Patent Owner Response to which this line of argument is properly responsive, and Petitioner does not identify any such line of argument. Instead, Petitioner’s argument appears to advance belatedly a new theory. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 73–74, available at” slip op. at 43
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“We credit the supporting testimony of Dr. Olivier on the points discussed above, as it is explained sufficiently and consistent with the testimony simply mirrors the Petition and does not explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Kovvali in the manner Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 35; Reply 17–18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 83.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 7,035,279 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,035,279 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00505 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16–19, 21, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Gai under theory 1B; claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“patent, we look to “1) the types of problems encountered in the art; 2) the prior art solutions to those problems; 3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; 4) the sophistication of the technology; and 5) the educational level of active workers in the field.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 666–67 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate.” Id. at 667.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“The most common type of MAC bridge is a switch, which has multiple ports connecting it to LANs, other switches, host computing systems, or other network elements. Switches can be roughly classified as access switches or core switches. An access switch has ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems. Core switches interconnect the access switches into a Wide Area Network (WAN), by direct connection between the core switch and access switches and/or by connection to other core switches. Core switches that are directly connected to access switches are referred to herein as edge switches. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27–38. Both parties refer to this disclosure when arguing whether particular switches in the asserted prior art (Gai) qualify as an “access switch” or “edge switch.” See Pet. 5, 22, 27–28 (“edge switches are ‘[c]ore switches that are directly connected to access switches’”), 71; PO Resp. 31–32 (“The ’986 patent discloses that ‘[a]n access switch has ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints.’ . . . The ’986 patent also discloses that edge switches are ‘[c]ore switches that are directly connected to access switches.’”); Reply 20, 22. Dr. Houh and Dr. Olivier do so as well. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39, 66–67, 82–83, 166, 171, 193; Ex. 2001 ¶ 80. Based on the full trial record, we agree and conclude that the descriptions of “access switch” and “edge switch” in the ’986 patent reflect what was understood to be the plain and ordinary meanings of these terms at the time of the invention. Accordingly, we interpret “access switch” to mean a switch with ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems, and interpret “edge switch” to mean a core switch that is directly connected to an access switch.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“and conclude that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to designate switch 117 as the root switch when implementing the network reconfiguration method of Gai. The only mention of an access switch connected to port 7 of switch 114 is at column 13, lines 59–63 of Gai. While that sentence establishes that such an access switch may exist in the network, it does not state or imply that it would be the root switch. Instead, when discussing the operation of the Figure 1 network, Gai only identifies switches 120 and 121 as the root switch. See Ex. 1005, col. 10, ll. 37–41, col. 11, ll. 60–64, col. 14, ll. 16–20, col. 15, ll. 27–29, 38–51, col. 16, ll. 42–45. To be sure, Gai does disclose that “execution of the spanning tree algorithm causes the switches to elect a single switch, among all the switches within each network, to be the ‘root’ switch,” where “[e]ach switch has a unique numerical identifier (switch ID) and the root is the switch having the lowest switch ID numeric value,” such that an access switch can be the root switch if it has the lowest switch ID. See Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 42–47, col. 10, ll. 29–36. As Patent Owner and Dr. Olivier explain in detail, though, Gai expressly cautions against doing so. Gai discloses that [d]epending on the configuration of a given network, the location of the root can significantly affect the distance that messages must travel. For example, many networks include a plurality of switches designated as access switches that provide connectivity to LANs, end stations, etc., and a plurality of backbone switches that, in turn, interconnect the various access switches. If the root is located at an access switch and the principal server utilized by the end stations (i.e., clients) is coupled to a backbone switch, the average distance between end stations and the primary server may be quite high, resulting in inefficient network operation. In addition, the backbone switches may become partitioned as ports between them are blocked. Id. at col. 3, ll. 17–29; see also id. at col. 10, ll. 26–29 (the “location of the root may affect the average distance (i.e., the average number of hops) a message travels and/or cause undesirable partitioning of backbone switches”). Thus, the location of the root is not an unimportant consideration—it affects the distance messages must travel and can cause backbone switches to be partitioned. See id. Gai, therefore, discloses that “[t]o reduce the average distance and avoid partitioning of the backbone switches, it is desirable to locate the root at a backbone switch.”10 Id. at col. 3, ll. 29–31 (emphasis added). Switch 117 in Petitioner’s modified Figure 1 is an access switch, not a backbone switch. See id. at col. 6, ll. 10–12 (“Access switches are preferably coupled to entities (e.g., LANs, end stations, etc.) whereas backbone switches provide the interconnections between access switches.”).” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed
“We agree with Petitioner. For purposes of claim 1, which does not recite “downstream” communication of dummy traffic (unlike claims 11, 12, 23, and 24), the only modification to Figure 1 is the addition of switch 117 and server 112e—otherwise, in Petitioner’s analysis, Gai’s method operates exactly as described when a failure occurs at root port 3 of switch 114. See Pet. 69–73, 81–85; Tr. 47:20–48:2. That modification is expressly supported by Gai, which discloses the following: Rapid reconfiguration entity 234 similarly generates one or more separate multicast messages 400 for each remaining entity directly coupled to access switch 114 (i.e., entities or end stations on LANs 102–104). In each message 400, entity 234 loads SA field 414 with the address of the corresponding entity. Each of these messages are similarly forwarded by access switch 114 through the new forwarding port (i.e., port number four). In addition, entity 234 generates and transmits one or more multicast messages 400 for entities reachable through switch 114 on ports other than its root port. For example, if port number seven at switch 114 were coupled to another access switch, entity 234 would transmit multicast messages 400 carrying the source address of entities directly coupled to this additional access switch as well. Thus, at least one multicast message 400 is generated and transmitted for each entity directly coupled to or downstream of access switch 114 (relative to the root). As set forth above, upon receipt of these multicast messages 400, the other devices within network 100 update their corresponding filtering databases with the new destination ports, as necessary. Ex. 1005, col. 13, l. 50–col. 14, l. 3 (emphasis added). Gai thus expressly contemplates the addition of “another access switch” coupled to port 7 of switch 114. Switch 117 in the modified Figure 1 is such a switch. See PO Resp. 30 (Patent Owner arguing that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that switch 117 is an access switch”); Ex. 1018, 84:14–85:9 (Dr. Olivier agreeing that switch 117 is an “access switch”). And because an “access switch” has “ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems,” and the above disclosure mentions “entities directly coupled to th[e] additional access switch,” switch 117 would be directly connected to a device like server 112e as well. See Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 31–33; Ex. 1005, col. 13, ll. 59–63; supra Section II.B. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that Gai in its written description expressly discloses the particular “variation of the topology” of Figure 1 that Petitioner asserts. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 165. Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Gai to meet the claims.” PO Resp. 14–16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 47–49). Patent Owner’s arguments are primarily directed to Petitioner’s asserted modification for its “1A” theory. See id. To the extent Patent Owner’s arguments apply to claim 1 and “1B,” we disagree, as Gai expressly describes the asserted modification to Figure 1 (i.e., adding an access switch connected to port 7 of switch 114). Thus, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the method of claim 1 based on Gai’s full disclosure.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,917,986 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,917,986 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00508 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18, 21–24, and 26–29 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rosenberg; the Board did not reach the alternative Brock grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry experience or graduate-level academic experience with human-computer interaction.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–45). This level of skill appears reasonable in view of the disclosures in the ’546 patent and asserted prior art. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that we need not construe any claim terms explicitly because “the Petition’s prior art discloses each element of the challenged claims under any plausible construction.” Pet. 8. We agree with Petitioner that, for this Decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. 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))). To the extent that we discuss specific claim language, we do so below in the context of the prior art. See, e.g., infra Section III.C.2(e).” slip op. at 6
- 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 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). When a ground in a petition is based on a combination of references, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We base our obviousness inquiry on factual considerations 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 skill in the art, and (4) any objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness that may be in evidence.4 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 9,116,546 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,116,546 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00556 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Astala and Shahoian; claims 1, 6–9, 13, 14, and 18 also over Keely and Kolmykov-Zotov; claims 2–5, 10–12, and 15–17 also over those references with Shahoian.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“As we explained in the Institution Decision, we have reviewed the Board’s prior decision in IPR2016-01777 and we disagree with Valve that the previous Board panel actually construed the “determining a press” limitation. See Dec. on Inst. 9–10. The previous Board panel was merely making the point that the three conditions in the “determining a press” limitation had to be related in some way, and pointed to Figure 3 of the ’507 patent as an example of that relationship. IPR2016-01777, Paper 7 at 14–15 (Ex. 1023) (explaining that the interval in Figure 3 is “an integral part of the ‘determining a press imitation’”). The prior Board decision in IPR2016-01777 did not contain a claim construction because, in its Decision on Rehearing, the previous Board panel stated that it “did not expressly construe the ‘determining a press limitation’ or interpret[] the limitation to require the first two conditions recited in the limitation to be maintained for the duration of the first interval.” Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2016- 01777, Paper 9 at 3 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2017) (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing). Thus, the prior Board decision outcome was not reliant on any particular claim interpretation or characterization of Figure 3; instead, it faulted the petitioner in that case for not considering the three conditions as a whole in the manner required by the claims. Id. at 3–4 (explaining that the petitioner needed to show the “‘first interval has elapsed’ condition as a part of the ‘determining a press limitation’” (emphasis added)). Notwithstanding, and for the sake of clarity, to the extent the prior Board decision in IPR2016-01777 characterized Figure 3 of the ’507 patent to require the pressure and change in pressure conditions to be met during the entire interval, we agree with Valve that such a reading of Figure 3 is incorrect. As Valve points out in its analysis, with which we agree, the flowchart in Figure 3 allows for both the pressure and change in pressure conditions to be met during some but not all of the entire time interval in certain circumstances. Pet. 12–14.3 In summary, we agree with Valve that the three conditions of the “determining a press” limitation are independent insofar as satisfaction of one condition is not predicated on the satisfaction of another condition. In our view, however, that point is merely reciting what the claim already requires—namely, that “determining a press” is defined as the satisfaction of the three conditions. Nothing more is required. Thus, we do not see the need to construe independent claim 1 beyond its plain language.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Mr. Ward, Valve argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . on November 26, 2003 would have had a Bachelors’ degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry or graduate level experience with software engineering, haptics programming, and/or human-computer interaction, including experience with user-interfaces and applications involving touchscreens, touchpads, and related technologies. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–51). Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Dec. on Inst. 8. That is, we adopt Valve’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because (1) it is consistent with the ’507 patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Mr. Ward. We apply this assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Turning to rationale to combine, Valve contends that, because Shahoian recognizes that “[o]ne problem with existing touchpads is that there is no haptic feedback provided to the user” to “assist and inform the user” when interpreting gestures, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Astala’s input touch screen 70 was ready for the improvement that Shahoian provides—namely, “haptic feedback associated with touchpad/touchscreen input gestures.” Pet. 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 6) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158–160). Valve argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Shahoian’s haptic feedback into Astala’s input touch screen 70 would have introduced certain benefits taught by Shahoian, including, but not limited to, using haptic feedback to inform users of touchpad gestures by “assist[ing] users in noisy environments . . . where sound may not be easily heard by the user.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 178) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 187, 188, 193; Ex. 1003 ¶ 161). Valve also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Shahoian’s pressure-sensing components in Astala’s input touch screen 70 because, among other reasons, using actual pressure sensors in a touchpad would have provided more accurate determinations of user input. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 164–166). Valve asserts there was a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because it involves “us[ing] Shahoian’s haptic feedback and pressure sensors for their intended use.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 180, 181). In addition, Valve asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected Shahoian’s haptic feedback and pressure sensors to succeed in Astala because “Shahoian demonstrates that algorithms for haptic feedback were known and predictable.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 182). In summary, upon reviewing Valve’s unrebutted arguments and evidence explaining how the combined teachings of Astala and Shahoian account for all the limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 14, we agree with and adopt Valve’s analysis. See Pet. 17–31, 38–41. Accordingly, Valve has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of these independent claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Astala and Shahoian.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,749,507 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,749,507
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.