- 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 - Microchip Technology Inc. v. Aptiv Technologies AGSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 18, 2025 · IPR2024-00495 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13 and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Chang and Chang II; claims 18–20 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, in the context of Chang, a POSITA would have been motivated to implement dual-role ports by including a switch (e.g., multiplexer or crossbar) that connects the dual-role port(s) directly to the hub’s upstream port (when the consumer product is configured as a device, i.e., path 48) or to the hub through the bridge (when the consumer product is configured as host, i.e., path 54. Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 182–187). Petitioner’s argument that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Chang to include switching functionality as taught by Chang II and supported by other substantial evidence appears well-reasoned and well-supported. Petitioner argues that “[a] POSITA would have been further motivated to improve Chang in view of Chang II, because Chang II expressly states its relevance to USB hubs.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 181; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 27, 40). And, Petitioner argues that “while Chang discloses little regarding its bridge (EX1014, [0020]), Chang II details various aspects of its bridge (EX1015, Title, Figs. 1-2 and 5).” Id. In support of this argument, the Petition provides: Importantly, Chang II further details exemplary switching for either a host- or device-product: “the main feature is the provision of two different transmission paths, so that by automatically detecting the type of device connected (host or slave) the present invention can switch to the proper transmission path.” EX1015, [0021]. In other words, Chang II describes “switch[ing]” to connect a “bridge” transmission path (when the product is host) or “bypass” path (when the product is device). Id., Figs. 1, 5, [0013]. And Chang II further discloses “detection unit 134” for detecting whether the consumer product is host or device. Id., [0038]. Id. (bracketed material in original, footnote omitted). Petitioner contends that “[a]ccordingly, a POSITA would have been motivated, with a high expectation of success, to route the dual-role ports (and products attached thereto) to the appropriate path using a switch.” Id. at 41–42. We determine that this contention is well-reasoned and well-supported. Patent Owner challenges on several grounds the showing regarding” slip op. at 51
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Id. As discussed above, we determine that any alleged commercial success secondary consideration evidence has not been established to have a nexus to the claimed invention. Accordingly, we consider the evidence of commercial success but accord it little weight in our overall obviousness determination.” slip op. at 60
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot shown unpatentableDecided for petitioner
“Id. As discussed above, we determine that any alleged commercial success secondary consideration evidence has not been established to have a nexus to the claimed invention. Accordingly, we consider the evidence of commercial success but accord it little weight in our overall obviousness determination.” slip op. at 60
- Strike new argumentDenied
“because the Reply improperly presents new theories of unpatentability with belated supporting evidence that could have been present in the Petition itself.” Paper 37, 1. Patent Owner contends that, in response to an argument Patent Owner made in the Response that “Petitioner’s proposed prior art combination features a structural flaw” (id. at 2), Petitioner’s Reply improperly presents a new argument not found in the Petition (id. at 3–6). As discussed supra (section II.E.3.a.), we determine that, because Patent Owner’s structural flaw argument fails, we do not reach the alleged new argument and evidence that Patent Owner seeks to strike. Accordingly, this motion is moot.” slip op. at 77
Patent outcomesUS 9,619,420 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,619,420 - 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 - 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 - Microchip Technology Inc. v. Aptiv Technologies AGAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00230 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Chang and Chang II; the Board did not reach the Chang, Chang II, and Chutorash ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner and find that “computer network protocols” is correct in light of the ’072 patent’s disclosure and claim 1. In particular, the ’072 patent teaches that it “generally relates to [USB] connectivity between, for example, mobile consumer devices and vehicle electronic systems.” Ex. 1009, 1:21–23. And the ’072 patent’s teachings focus on common network components (e.g., hub, bridge, ports) and common networking concepts (e.g., master/slave network architecture and bridging) which are used in the USB context, rather than detailed aspects (e.g., signal timing, signal levels, power levels) of the USB protocol. See generally Ex. 1009; see also Ex. 1084, 103:21–104:2, 104:24–105:4; Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1084,7 100:17–101:12 (acknowledging that Dr. Houh testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would know basic USB concepts like bridging, master/slave architecture, etc.”), 102:3–8, 103:21– 104:2, 104:24–105:4). Likewise, claim 1 repeatedly recites “USB,” but does so to identify that all of the components of the data system (i.e., USB ports, USB hub, USB bridge, USB host, USB multiplexing switches) employ the USB protocol. Ex. 1009, 9:15–10:18. As the ’072 patent teaches, “USB 7 Houh Deposition Tr. (2024/12/18, Day 1). technology . . . [wa]s commonly available, familiar to the end user, cost effective and ubiquitous.” Id. at 1:35–37. Thus, although the ’072 patent is taught in the USB context, “computer network protocols” concepts are the focus. For these same reasons, we find unavailing Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been well-versed in USB standards (including the USB 2.0 and 3.0 Specifications and the OTG Supplement) and the design/deployment of USB hosts, USB devices, and USB hubs, including suitable environments for USB systems.” Pet. 26.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Lastly, we give little weight to Mr. Welch’s testimony regarding the level of one of ordinary skill as he does not indicate what precisely constitutes the basis of his testimony on this issue. See Ex. 1013 ¶ 47.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Here, Petitioner argues that “embedded USB host” means “USB host physically embedded in a vehicle.” See Pet. 27–28. “Patent Owner does not contend that any claim construction is required.” PO Resp. 5. We agree with Patent Owner that we do not need to construe any term to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). And we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product that ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). In other words, “[a] presumption of nexus requires both that the product embodies the invention and is coextensive with it.” Id. at 1211 (citing Brown, 229 F.3d at 1130). Patent Owner fails to show either of these requirements. First, Patent Owner argues that in his Supplemental Declaration, Dr. Houh “provides on a per limitation basis how [Patent Owner]’s dual role hub meets all limitations of claim 1.” PO Resp. 73 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 136). Notably, Patent Owner cites to a single paragraph in this declaration, without providing any specific arguments in its Response that its product practices claim 1. Id. Rather, Patent Owner incorporates its arguments by reference, which is not permitted. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). Thus, we do not consider these arguments, and we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s product practices claim 1. Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019,8 35–36 (citing Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative)) (“[P]arties that incorporate expert testimony by reference in their petitions . . . without providing explanation of such testimony risk having the testimony not considered by the Board.”).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 11,176,072 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,176,072 - 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 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00344 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–7 unpatentable under § 103 over Agarwala, finding Petitioner proved unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notTerm construed petitioner constructionPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“[t]he prosecution history is consistent with the specification’s focus on the data beacons recited in the preamble as being the disclosed invention.” PO Resp. 24. Accordingly, we find the prosecution history also favors Petitioner regarding whether “[t]he term ‘data beacons’ recited in the preamble is an intended use and not limiting.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Accordingly, based on the complete record, we agree with Petitioner” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 11,146,632 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,146,632 - Nuvei Technologies, Inc. v. Autoscribe CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00089 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Nuvei did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–27 would have been obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“providing” negative limitation of independent claim 1, and the similar negative limitations of independent claims 8, 15, 23, and 25. Accordingly, Nuvei has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertions that the subject matter of independent claims 1, 8, 15, 23, and 25 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Stringfellow and Kloster.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the art “would have had at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or comparable field of study, and (2) at least two years’ experience working with and programming networked computer systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 36). Nuvei also argues that “[a]dditional education might substitute for some experience, and vice versa.” Id. In the Preliminary Response, Autoscribe does not address the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Nuvei’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with both the ’621 patent and the asserted prior art, and it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“The supporting testimony from Nuvei’s declarant, Dr. Almeroth, on these issues fare no better. Dr. Almeroth provides no additional explanation beyond the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition to support Nuvei’s assertion that Kloster does not provide the payment data token to the payer during its token retrieval functions. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 100.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“argument that Kloster does not teach the “without providing” negative limitation required by each independent claim. Nuvei appears to contend that Kloster teaches this limitation in two different ways—namely, through either a “call back URL” or “API calls by the merchant.” Pet. 50–51 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 15, 23) (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 24). We address Nuvei’s contentions in turn.” slip op. at 21
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,620,621 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00115 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28–30, 32, 33, and 35 on all asserted grounds, based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“4. Determination as to a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence of record, we conclude, for the reasons provided above, that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 21, and Wampler.” slip op. at 41
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“With respect to Patent Owner’s assertions about word count limits, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019 (“Consolidated TPG”) states that “deleting spacing between words, or using excessive acronyms or abbreviations for word phrases, in order to circumvent the rules on word count, may lead to a party’s brief not being considered.” Consolidated TPG, 40 (citing Pi-Net Int’l, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 600 F. App’x 774 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). As the basis for denying the Petition, Patent Owner alleges “undue prejudice.” Prelim. Resp. 76. Patent Owner, however, did not raise with the Board, prior to filing its Preliminary Response, any concern with the manner in which Petitioner formatted its Petition. As a result, Patent Owner did not avail itself of the opportunity to seek relief to address any alleged undue prejudice short of denying the Petition through, for example, an increase in the word count for its own brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(2). Under the circumstances alleged improper formatting.8” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering; knowledge and experience in human circulatory system anatomy and physiology; and at least five years’ experience designing and developing implantable medical devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 1–2. We find, for purposes of the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of skill reflected in these references and in the ’517 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In sum, Petitioner maintains a narrower construction of “magneto coupling” is correct, and alleges grounds of unpatentability based on both its narrower proposed construction (a construction encompassed by the broader construction), as well as based on the broader construction that Patent Owner does not dispute. We, therefore, find no merit to Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s contention “contradicts itself” or fails to present a “prima facie obviousness position.” See Prelim. Resp. 3. Patent Owner does not dispute the broader construction applied by Petitioner, which encompasses the narrower construction Petitioner proposes. For purposes of this Decision, we apply the broader construction of “magneto coupling,” which encompasses generating a rotating field either by rotating magnets or by an electromagnet / stator.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,674,517 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00116 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Abbott would prove at least one claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2024). Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’077 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“least a bachelor’s degree in engineering; knowledge and experience in human circulatory system anatomy and physiology; and at least five years’ experience designing and developing implantable medical devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). At this stage, “Patent Owner takes no position regarding the appropriate level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 1. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 6. We view this definition for the level of ordinary skill as consistent with the ’077 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“axially adjacent.” In particular, Petitioner argues in connection with mapping cited art to challenged claims for the Wampler and Akamatsu asserted grounds that “a magnetic element sealed within a rotor is . . . ‘axially adjacent.’” Pet. 20 n.6. Petitioner fails to point to any intrinsic evidence to support this construction. Rather, Petitioner alleges that Patent Owner took this position in the parallel litigation in a chart mapping claim 1 to accused products. Id. (citing Ex. 1019,6 5–7). Petitioner does not explain how Patent Owner’s chart supports Petitioner’s construction here. See id. at 6 Petitioner identifies this exhibit as “Exhibit 13 of Complaint, dated November 27, 2023,” which comprises a claim chart mapping accused products to claim 1. when “a magnetic element [is] sealed within a rotor,” it necessarily means being “axially adjacent,” as Petitioner alleges. See Ex. 1019. Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that this chart instead labels product components that are adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis. Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1019, 6–7). In addition, we agree with Patent Owner that “[t]his [mapping] is in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms and does not suggest that any component ‘sealed within’ another component would categorically be axially adjacent thereto.” Id. We note that Petitioner applies the plain and ordinary meaning of “axially adjacent” for other asserted grounds, arguing that components which are adjacent to one another along a central axis are “axially adjacent.” E.g., Pet. 55–57. Accordingly, we find, for purposes of this Decision, that the plain and ordinary meaning of “axially adjacent” is being adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis, and does not mean a magnetic element sealed within a rotor. Id. at 20. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“would have found it obvious to include Wampler’s “techniques related to its axially aligned inflow tube” in the HeartMateIII device taught by Bourque. Pet. 81–88. Petitioner argues that Wampler teaches an arrangement for which “[g]ood anatomic compatibility is possible . . . fitting well between the apex of the heart and the adjacent diaphragm.” Id. at 83 (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 76) (alterations in original). Petitioner reasons that applying Wampler’s arrangement to Bourque combines old elements performing known functions yielding expected results. Id. at 83–84. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known from Wampler that an axial inflow, as taught by Wampler, would have improved blood flow for the device of Bourque by eliminating the flow restrictive elbow in Bourque. Id. at 84 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 648–649; Ex. 1007, 2; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–76). Petitioner contends that Bourque recognized certain components, including inflow components, were the cause of clinical troubles, and that Wampler “taught how to eliminate these components that caused clinical troubles–using the inlet to also ‘serve[] as the inflow canula.’” Id. at 85–86 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 741–747; Ex. 1007, 1, 5; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–76). Petitioner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Wampler’s arrangement would have reduced “rates of infection” by avoiding placement of the pump in a preperitoneal pocket person of ordinary skill in the art “would have adhered to the express teachings of [Wampler], which focused on ‘[g]ood anatomic compatibility’ so that the device ‘fit[s] well between the apex of the heart and the adjacent diaphragm,’ eliminating the need for a peritoneal pocket dissection associated with increased rates of infection.” Id. at 86–87 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 651–654; Ex. 1008 ¶ 76) (second and third alterations in original). Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the asserted combination of Bourque and Wampler “would ‘fit[] well between the apex of the heart and the adjacent diaphragm’ due to the pump’s ‘development as a compact’ device and the existence of several similar LVADs that fit well at that position.” Id. at 87 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 652–655; Ex. 1007, 5). Lastly, Petitioner argues that the asserted combination would have been obvious to try, because “there were a finite number (i.e., two) [of] options for LVAD implantation: the device would be implanted at a preperitoneal pocket, or at the cardiac apex.” Id. at 87–88 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 656). At this stage, we find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive, and find that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support combining Wampler and Bourque’s teachings in the manner Petitioner does.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,754,077
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.