• Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01269 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 were unpatentable over the four asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017 (en banc) (quoting Magnum Oil). 8 The UVM Limitation is identified as [1.A] in the Petition and Preliminary Response. A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Obviousness is resolved based on 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, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). A party who petitions the Board for a determination of obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art described in the Petition and applied in the Preliminary Response, which is consistent with the description in the ’626 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017 (en banc) (quoting Magnum Oil). 8 The UVM Limitation is identified as [1.A] in the Petition and Preliminary Response. A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Obviousness is resolved based on 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, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). A party who petitions the Board for a determination of obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). We assess Petitioner’s evidence and argument according to the above- referenced obviousness standard. For the reasons given below, we determine Petitioner has not established that Belanger and Halevy disclose, teach, suggest or otherwise render obvious independent claim 1 of the ’626 patent. We begin with a discussion of Belanger and Halevy. slip op. at 13

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

    “Although Halevy’s schema-mapping technique maps each form field to a common set of SO-properties in each SO-class, there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in Halevy to use schema-mapping to “link” or integrate form fields (parameter names) of different forms on different websites to each other to generate deep-links. We find the Petition’s reasoning and the cited testimony of Dr. Fox on this crucial point to be conclusory. We also find the Preliminary Response to be persuasive, Dr. Malek’s testimony (Ex. 2001) to be credible, and the reasoning of both consistent with the disclosures in Halevy.” slip op. at 22

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,789,626
• Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01270 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–26 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented and the evidence of record, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–26 of the ’378 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby do not institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’378 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA or POSITA) at the time of the invention of the ’378 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with web programming and search engine systems[; m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–36) (“Patent Owner and its expert apply this definition.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “(3) Discussion We observe first that “[Halevy’s] first step in processing a web source is to locate the forms in the source and to extract the text corresponding to the fields in the form.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53. According to Halevy, the “web source is subsequently classified into the ontology classes.” Id. ¶ 55. Then, the “forms on the page are classified into the classes in the ontology.” Id. ¶ 57 (emphasis added). Halevy explains that this classification is used to predict what kinds of objects are in the databases queried by the form. Id. For “Schema Matching,” Halevy discloses “a mapping between the fields in the form and the SO-properties of the SO-classes[.]” Id. ¶¶ 61–62. Missing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that a “plurality of computer-readable field identifiers” are mapped “to one another” as required by claim 1. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Fox, testifies that “[t]he ‘SO-classes’ are identified for each form and used to map the fields in the form (i.e., “the plurality of computer-readable field identifiers”) to one another using “SOproperties,” as shown . . . in annotated Figure 3.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 39–40, 45, 49, 62, 67). Yet, those cited portions of Halevy do not support Dr. Fox’s testimony. As Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Sam Malek, explains: the language highlighted by Petitioner in Figure 3 does not actually show that “[t]he ‘SO-classes’ are . . . used to map the fields in the form . . . to one another using ‘SO-properties,’” as he contends. Id. Rather, the language in Figure 3 that Dr. Fox has highlighted merely shows that, for any given form, there is “mapping between fields” of that form and “class properties.” EX1006, Fig. 3. In other words, fields in a form are mapped to class properties. Figure 3 does not show any mapping of fields to each other, as Dr. Fox argues.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,633,378
• Kinderfarms LLC v. Genexa Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · PGR2023-00051 · APJ Deborah Katz · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over FR458 with the ’4666 patent and WO133; claims 1–17 are also unpatentable over WO742 with the ’4666 patent and WO133.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties’ positions about the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar. (See Pet., 13–14; see PO Resp., 10–12.) In light of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a bachelor of science degree in a relevant life sciences field, such as chemistry, biochemistry, or pharmacy, with at least three to four years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations and would have had access to team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals. (See Pet. 13–14; see PO Resp. 10–12; see Dec. 6–7.) Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’795 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Although Petitioner puts forth constructions for terms in the claims of the ’795 patent, Patent Owner argues that we need not expressly construe any terms to resolve the controversy between the parties. (See Pet. 14–19; see PO Resp. 12.) Except as indicated below, we agree that express construction of the claim terms is not required because the parties do not materially dispute the meanings of the 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))). Limitation (c) of claim 1 recites “syrup formulation” once and then “syrup” by itself twice. The parties agree that two recitations of “syrup” by itself mean and are synonymous with “syrup formulation.” (See Tr. 15:16– 19 (counsel for Petitioner: “[T]he term, syrup, by itself, means the formulation. And for that reason, we--it’s our position that it’s the syrup formulation that has the specific viscosity requirements as well as the other features that we discussed.”); 31:17–20 (counsel for Patent Owner: “But those wherein clauses, what it’s referring to, the syrup formulation and the syrup -- it was all to a complete to a final formulation, right, it’s not just the agave syrup. Everybody here recognizes and understands that from that perspective.”).) Thus, the parties agree that the “viscosity of less than 1500 centipoise at about 22 degrees” limits the final “pharmaceutical syrup formulation for oral administration,” not the “agave syrup” limitation in limitation (b) of claim 1.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner argues further that Dr. Crowley testifies that, “[g]enerally, suspensions having a viscosity in the range of 20 to 150 cP are considered readily pourable,” but that this range is well below the viscosity range of 200–900 cP taught in WO133 and the preferred viscosity range of 1000–3000 cP taught in the ’4666 patent. (See PO Resp. 45 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 59).) Dr. Crowley testifies that “increasing the viscosity of a suspension formulation has been shown to impair the dissolution characteristics of immediate release acetaminophen” and that, “[w]ith respect to suspensions for oral administration, having a higher viscosity is generally not desirable.” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 59.) According to Patent Owner, this is a “teaching away” because Petitioner’s own expert testimony demonstrates a motivation not to combine the acetaminophen formulation of FR458- Example 1 with the 1000-3000 cP range of the ’4666 patent and the 200-900 cP range of WO133 since by his own admission doing so would yield bad results (i.e., impairing the dissolution characteristics of the acetaminophen) and generally undesirable higher viscosity. (PO Resp. 46 (citing Berkland Decl., Ex. 2009 ¶ 148).) Dr. Crowley’s cited testimony, however, is about general characteristics of suspensions for oral administration, whereas the WO133 refers specifically to sweetened analgesic formulations. (See Ex. 1006, 8:1– 3 (“The viscosity of the acetaminophen composition generally ranges from about 200–900 centipoise, preferably from about 300–700 centipoise.”); see Pet. Reply 8–9.) As Petitioner notes, Dr. Crowley also testifies that the viscosity of 29 commercially available, pediatric liquid oral antibiotic formulations were measured and determined to range from 20 to 1,780 cP” and that “[t]he viscosity of Children’s Tylenol has been reported to be less than 1,000 centipoise at shear rates between 0.05 and 0.2 reciprocal seconds.” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 58.) Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Crowley’s testimony contradicts the teachings regarding viscosity of analgesic formulations in the cited prior art.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,617,795 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,617,795
• Curio Bioscience, Inc. v. Prognosys Biosciences Inc. And 10x Genomics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2024-01289 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7, 11–15, 17, 19, and 27–29 were unpatentable over Cantor, Cantor and Armani, or Frisen.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’022 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner does not argue that any claim term requires construction. Pet. 20. Likewise, Patent Owner takes the position that “no claim terms require explicit construction” for purposes of determining whether to institute inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 20. We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not contest the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 20. Because Petitioner’s unopposed definition is consistent with the ’022 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt that definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that “[n]ot only does Cantor not teach contacting a ‘tissue sample’ with beads, but Cantor comes nowhere close to suggesting that its beads could be contacted with a tissue sample to identify spatial location.” Prelim. Resp. 50. Here, we are persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Cantor, sole inventor of Cantor (Ex. 2002 ¶ 29), that Cantor’s nucleic acid samples are made in bulk from the extraction of nucleic acids from biological material and mixed together “to create the sample nucleic acid prior to mixing that with the solid phase nucleic acids to capture molecule(s) from the sample nucleic acid.” Id. at ¶ 17. More specifically, “nucleic acids are extracted from the different types of cells within a tissue sample without preserving their spatial distribution.” Id. at ¶ 19. Thus, these types of “bulk-analysis techniques provide no information about spatial location of biological molecules in tissue samples.” Id. at ¶ 17. While we recognize that Cantor discloses “providing the beads according to an (X,Y) array” (Pet. 39, citing to Dr. Puglisi, Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 65– 66), this disclosure makes no mention of using this array to map where the nucleic acids of Cantor came from relative to the original sample, let alone when that original sample is a tissue. See e.g. Ex. 1031, 17. The only mentions of “tissue” made in Cantor are in reference to where the sample may be obtained, for example, “[t]he biological sample can be in any form, including without limitation a solid material such as a tissue.” Id. at 6. Cantor provides no teaching, however, regarding how to use a tissue sample with the probes and methods described in Cantor to identify where the target nucleic acids of Cantor were spatially located within the tissue sample itself. Incidental to the parties’ dispute is whether Petitioner’s reliance on and characterization of Cantor’s use of the terms “sample” and “nucleic acid sample” as equivalent in meaning to “tissue sample” recited in the challenged claims is persuasive. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1031, 6). Here, we note that Cantor discloses that “[s]ample nucleic acid may be derived from one or more samples or sources.” Ex. 1031, 5; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 35, 149. Cantor refers to “sample” as the thing that contains the sample nucleic acid. Ex. 1031, 5. For example, Cantor discloses that “[a] sample may be collected from an organism.” Ex. 1031, 6; Ex. 2002 ¶ 42. When a “sample” comes from a living (or formerly living) source, Cantor refers to that sample as a “biological sample,” which can “be in any form, including without limitation a solid material such as a tissue, cells, a cell pellet, a cell extract, or a biopsy, or a biological fluid . . . .” Id. Those samples, however, are further processed in bulk to obtain the nucleic acid sample. For example, Cantor discloses that the “sample nucleic acid may be a result of nucleic acid purification or isolation and/or amplification of nucleic acid molecules from the sample.” Ex. 1031, 7; see also id. at 54 (The “sample nucleic acid” is derived from a sample or source “by any means commonly known in the art, including but not limited to cell lysis procedures using chemical, physical or electrolytic lysis methods.”); Ex. 2002 ¶ 39. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s attempts to characterize Cantor’s “nucleic acid sample” as synonymous to “tissue sample” recited in the challenged claims. Rather, we agree with Dr. Cantor that “[a] tissue is simply the source of the sample nucleic acid used in [Cantor’s] methods”—it is not the sample nucleic acid itself. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 36, 150. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence to the contrary.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,480,022
• Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01295 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–19, and 21–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Shaffer and Saylor; the Board did not reach the alternative Gogic and Opitz ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “1. Shaffer (Ex. 1004) Shaffer is a U.S. Patent Application Publication published on” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “1. Rationale to Combine Shaffer and Saylor Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would” slip op. at 23

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5, 7–19, and 21–24 of U.S. Patent 8,994,830 B2 are unpatentable on the bases set forth in the following table. Claim(s)” slip op. at 86

  Patent outcomesUS 8,994,830 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,994,830
• Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · PGR2024-00047 · APJ Steven M Amundson · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any of claims 1–7 was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “to institute a post-grant review. We may not institute a post-grant review unless we determine that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2024).” slip op. at 2

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as encompassing a” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 26

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 36

  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,830,546
• Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 14, 2025 · IPR2023-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11, 12, 15–17, and 20 as obvious over Kim; claims 3–5, 13, 14, 18, and 19 over Kim and Ishibashi; and claim 10 over Kim and Goss.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately two years industry experience in networking or communication systems.” Pet. 5; see also id. (“A person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.”). Patent Owner very similarly proposes that the skilled artisan “would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two to three years [of] experience in designing or developing telecommunication systems.” PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶42). Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’664 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “16). We generally agree, with the one caveat acknowledged by counsel for Patent Owner during the hearing. The caveat is that, although step [a] must be performed before step [b], it is within the scope of claim 1 if step [a] continues to be performed even after step [b] begins. Tr. 25:25–26:3 (Mr. Engel: “Well, I think in practicality, there would always be monitoring because there’s multiple media streams. So, you could have multiple alerts come in and the system could decide which one is more important. So, I don’t think you stop monitoring per se.”). We agree that continued performance of step [a], even after step [b] begins, is within the scope of claim 1. Second, Patent Owner proposes that “endpoint” means “end-user device,” as agreed to in district court. PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2004, 16). We adopt this construction. However, as will become evident below, this construction does little to address the actual dispute between the parties regarding application of “endpoint” to the prior art asserted in Ground 7 (Kim). Third, Patent Owner proposes that “media stream” means “audio or video or both, which may include associated data,” as adjudicated in district court. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2004, 42). We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kim and Ishibashi because the former teaches “that a goal of emergency warning broadcast systems is to ensure that the viewer receives the emergency warning information” and the latter teaches a means to achieving that goal. Pet. 80–81 (citing Ex. 1008, 3:13–19; Ex. 1002 ¶304; Ex. 1009 ¶¶5, 15, 17). More specifically, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Ishibashi’s audio output-switchover circuit in Kim’s controller system . . . to ensure that an emergency warning broadcast is received by the viewer even in situations where a headphone jack is left plugged in but unattended (e.g., not being worn) by the viewer.” Pet. 81 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶305). Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a combination and the result would have been predictable. Id. at 82 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶306). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s stated reasons for the combination as well as that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute these factual assertions underlying the obviousness analysis. PO Resp. 57.” slip op. at 29

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

    “2. Combination of Kim and Ishibashi Petitioner argues that both references are from the same field of endeavor as the ’664 patent, namely emergency communication systems. Pet. 80 (citing various portions of Exhibits 1001, 1008, and 1009). We are persuaded of this fact, which, in any event, Patent Owner does not dispute. See PO Resp. 57 (arguing against Ground 8 solely on the basis of its Ground 7 arguments). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kim and Ishibashi because the former teaches “that a goal of emergency warning broadcast systems is to ensure that the viewer receives the emergency warning information” and the latter teaches a means to achieving that goal. Pet. 80–81 (citing Ex. 1008, 3:13–19; Ex. 1002 ¶304; Ex. 1009 ¶¶5, 15, 17). More specifically, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Ishibashi’s audio output-switchover circuit in Kim’s controller system . . . to ensure that an emergency warning broadcast is received by the viewer even in situations where a headphone jack is left plugged in but unattended (e.g., not being worn) by the viewer.” Pet. 81 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶305). Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a combination and the result would have been predictable. Id. at 82 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶306). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s stated reasons for the combination as well as that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute these factual assertions underlying the obviousness analysis. PO Resp. 57.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,831,664 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,831,664
• K/S Himpp v. Bragi GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01205 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 were held unpatentable over the asserted prior art, and the revised motion to amend was denied because proposed substitute claims 15–28 were also unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–14 of the ’688 patent are unpatentable.15 In addition, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 15–28 are unpatentable. Our determinations are summarized below.” slip op. at 89

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “(d) Conclusion for Obviousness of Claim 15 For the reasons provided above, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that each of Petitioner’s asserted grounds (Hain in combination with Rass, Hain in combination with Shaffer and Rass, Hain in combination with Aumer, and Hain in combination with Shaffer and Aumer) renders proposed substitute independent claim 15 obvious. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and we do not agree for the reasons addressed above. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a” slip op. at 79

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “D. Anticipation by Hain Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, and 4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Hain, citing the Declaration of Dr. Kiaei for support. Pet. 17–29 (citing Ex. 1002). Patent Owner declined to file a Patent Owner Response and waived all arguments as to Petitioner’s challenges to the original claims. Tr. 35:9–16. In the absence of arguments and evidence from the Patent Owner, we still review Petitioner’s assertions to ascertain whether Petitioner has met its burden to establish the unpatentability of the original claims by a preponderance of the evidence. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1,2, and 4 are anticipated by Hain. 1. Independent Claim 1 Petitioner’s argument regarding the teachings of Hain in regards to” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “E. Obviousness over Hain and Shaffer Petitioner asserts that claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hain and Shaffer, citing the Declaration of Dr. Kiaei for support. Pet. 29–61 (citing Ex. 1002). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence and based on the evidence in the complete record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14 would have been obvious over the combination of Hain and Shaffer. For example, Petitioner’s arguments regarding independent claim 1 may be summarized as follows: Petitioner asserts that Shaffer teaches the preamble7 of claim 1, which recites a method for power control of a wireless earpiece. Pet. 29–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32, 34, 62, 63, Figs. 3A, 10; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 56–57). Petitioner contends that Shaffer’s wireless earbuds 1010 and 1012 are powered down automatically when they are placed into their storage case 11. Id. at 30. Specifically, Petitioner argues that Shaffer’s earbuds enter a low power mode in response to a magnetic sensor detecting that the earbuds are in their storage case. Id. at 31. Petitioner further contends that Shaffer in view of Hain teaches” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,397,688 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,397,688
• Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2023-00953 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1–10 unpatentable as obvious over Krassner, Badros, and Harkins; it did not reach the alternative Badros and Harkins ground.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On August 16, 2024, Petitioner filed a Request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision. Paper 73 (“Req.”). Patent Owner opposed the Request. Paper 77. On December 12, 2024, Director Vidal granted the Request and entered a Director Decision. Paper 78 (“Director Dec.”). The Director Decision states that “Petitioner persuasively shows that Badros discloses the viewability test.” Director Dec. 9. Accordingly, the Director Decision vacated the Previous FWD, and remanded back to us for further proceedings. Id. at 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6 and pursuant to the Director’s Decision. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–10 of the ’329 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). Nor does Petitioner, in its Reply, address, let alone rebut, Patent Owner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some experience and/or knowledge in internet advertising. See generally Pet. Reply. Patent Owner proposes that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a similar major involving computer programming (or at least four years of practical computer programming experience) and at least two years of experience (in or out of college) in the field of internet advertising.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2045 ¶54). We agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some experience in internet advertising, although we fail to see why one year would not be enough to familiarize sufficiently a computer scientist and/or programmer with the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. Based on the competing proposals, arguments, and evidence before us, we adopt and apply the following level of skill in assessing Petitioner’s would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical (or similar) engineering with about three years of experience in computer programming with at least one year of said experience being in the field of internet advertising.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Krassner clearly is a patent. It issued on August 13, 2019, far too late to be § 102(b) prior art. Even if we assume Krassner is also a “printed publication” withing the meaning of § 311(b), the same date would apply: August 13, 2019. Petitioner has not presented any evidence that the document that is Krassner was published prior to when it issued on August 13, 2019. That another document (the Krassner publication), which published much earlier, may contain the same or similar disclosure is not relevant to when Krassner was patented or published. In sum, Krassner is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). b) Whether Krassner is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Although Krassner is not prior under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b), we” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “subject matter [sought to be patented] pertains,’ this determination is frequently couched in terms of whether the art is analogous or not, i.e., whether the art is ‘too remote to be treated as prior art.’” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). “Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658–59.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,443,329 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,443,329
• K/S Himpp v. Bragi GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01204 · APJ Larry J Hume · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds; the revised motion to amend is denied because substitute claims 14–26 are unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “1–13, respectively. RMTA 1. A listing of proposed substitute claims 14–26 is provided by Patent Owner in Appendix A of its Revised Motion to Amend. Id. at APPX A-1. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Patent Owner has shown that proposed substitute claims 14–26 meet the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. However, we also determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 14–26 are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 10,117,014 unpatentable
  Nonecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,117,014

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.