- 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 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00741 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 12, 17, and 20 of the ’493 patent on all asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contentions of obviousness for claim 1 of the ’559 patent and claim 1 of the ’493 patent.” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” The” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Rallison is evidence of the knowledge that a head-mounted display would include a processor—provides sufficient rational underpinning for the combination of teachings. Petitioner proffers that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including a processor in a head-mounted display is a known technique to improve a similar device (Jaszlics’s visor) in the same way and predictably. 740 Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:4−14; 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 80). We do not find at this juncture that this argument is unsupported or speculative, as Patent Owner argues. Additionally, we understand Patent Owner’s arguments—that Jaszlics system would have no need for incorporating a processor in the visor as taught by Rallison—as contentions that Jaszlics either teaches away from such a combination or the benefits of such a configuration are outweighed by significant drawbacks. These contentions are underdeveloped and unsupported. Petitioner’s argument and evidence, at this juncture, reasonably explain the reasons to combine under precedent that there is a motivation to combine when “a known technique ‘has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.’” See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). The location of the processor in the head-mounted display of Jaszlics does not need to be the best option, so long as it is a suitable option. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Finally, as for Rallison and Jaszlics’s alleged incompatibility, we are not persuaded that more evidence is needed at this juncture for details on the modification of Jaszlics to include the processor of Rallison. Such argument amounts to a bodily incorporation argument, and our analysis focuses rather on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the “teachings” as alleged. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, we note the evidence presented by Petitioner that a head-mounted display’s use of electronics to generate the displayed video images was well known. 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 82; Ex. 1004, 10:4−14.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,376,493 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00740 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 12, 17, and 20 of both patents on all asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of each patent is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the reasons stated in this Decision, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’559 patent and at least one claim of the ’493 patent are unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the instant Petitions. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill, would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a 2 US Patent No. 6,166,744, issued Dec. 26, 2000 (Ex. 1003). 3 US Patent No. 6,369,952 B1, issued Apr. 9, 2002 (Ex. 1004). 4 WO 03/107039 A2, published Dec. 24, 2003 (Ex. 1008). 5 US Patent Application US 2002/0163486 A1, published Nov. 7, 2002 (Ex. 1009). person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. 740 Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21−25); 741 Pet. 4. Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill. As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“At this stage, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed construction persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” The Paper 10 in the 740 IPR; and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply, filed as Paper 11 in the 740 IPR. Specification’s discussions of “playfield” cited by Patent Owner use non-limiting language such as “for example” and “may” in describing the playfield. Ex. 1001, 2:38−40, 2:63–3:2, 3:23–25, 6:11−13, 6:46−48, 8:48– 62, 9:23–28, 20:28−58, 22:1−4. The disclosed examples of “a physical playfield” include “the physical world, a physical environment, or a defined physical playfield” (740 Ex. 1001, 1:58−60), which indicates that applicant intended “a physical playfield” as claimed to encompass more than a defined, or “bounded” physical playfield. This indication is consistent with the Specification’s disclosure that “the game world corresponds to an actual area of the physical world (such as the planet Earth or New York City).” 740 Ex. 1001, 11:12−14. Thus, in one disclosed embodiment, the physical playfield is the entire (unbounded) world. We are persuaded that the Specification’s descriptions of various embodiments with defined playfields and undefined playfields support construing the scope of a “physical playfield” as encompassing a physical playfield with defined boundaries, or a “bounded” playfield, as well as a physical playfield with undefined boundaries, or an “unbounded” playfield. Limiting the claim term to only “bounded” play spaces would read out broader embodiments from the claim scope. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.”). We, therefore, agree at this juncture with Petitioner’s claim construction analysis, and note that the alleged goal of improving the safety in virtual reality gaming does not support Patent Owner’s construction.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Second, Petitioner’s explanation of its alternative theory—that Rallison is evidence of the knowledge that a head-mounted display would include a processor—provides sufficient rational underpinning for the combination of teachings. Petitioner proffers that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including a processor in a head-mounted display is a known technique to improve a similar device (Jaszlics’s visor) in the same way and predictably. 740 Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:4−14; 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 80). We do not find at this juncture that this argument is unsupported or speculative, as Patent Owner argues. Additionally, we understand Patent Owner’s arguments—that Jaszlics system would have no need for incorporating a processor in the visor as taught by Rallison—as contentions that Jaszlics either teaches away from such a combination or the benefits of such a configuration are outweighed by significant drawbacks. These contentions are underdeveloped and unsupported. Petitioner’s argument and evidence, at this juncture, reasonably explain the reasons to combine under precedent that there is a motivation to combine when “a known technique ‘has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.’” See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). The location of the processor in the head-mounted display of Jaszlics does not need to be the best option, so long as it is a suitable option. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Finally, as for Rallison and Jaszlics’s alleged incompatibility, we are not persuaded that more evidence is needed at this juncture for details on the modification of Jaszlics to include the processor of Rallison. Such argument amounts to a bodily incorporation argument, and our analysis focuses rather on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the “teachings” as alleged. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, we note the evidence presented by Petitioner that a head-mounted display’s use of electronics to generate the displayed video images was well known. 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 82; Ex. 1004, 10:4−14.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,828,559 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00737 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, and 17 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Meta would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized by statute “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, and 17 of the ’476 patent. Accordingly, we institute the requested inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), includes revisions to Section 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the challenged claims issued from an application claiming priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply pre-AIA law. 2 US Patent No. 6,166,744 issued Dec. 26, 2000 (Ex. 1003). 3 Wayne Piekarski et al., “Integrating Virtual and Augmented Realities in an Outdoor Application,” Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE and ACM International Workshop on Augmented Reality (1999) (Ex. 1004). 4 US Patent No. 6,361,438 B1 issued Mar. 26, 2002 (Ex. 1006). 5 US Patent No. 6,951,515 B2 issued Oct. 4, 2005 (Ex. 1005). 6 US Publ. No. 2004/0002843 A1 published Jan. 1, 2004 (Ex. 1007). 7 WO 01/42809 A2 published June 14, 2001 (Ex. 1008). and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. (EX1002, ¶¶21-25.) Pet. 5–6. Patent Owner, at this stage, does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. See generally, Prelim. Resp. As Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” Ex. 1001, 21:6– 7; 22:26–27. The Specification’s discussions of “playfield” cited by Patent Owner use non-limiting language such as “for example” and “may” in describing the playfield. Id. at 2:32–36, 2:55–61, 3:14–16, 5:63–65, 6:30– 32, 8:30–44, 9:4–9, 19:60–20:22, 22:5–6. The disclosed examples of “a physical playfield” include “the physical world, a physical environment, or a defined physical playfield” (Ex. 1001, 1:51–53), which indicates that applicant intended “a physical playfield” as claimed to encompass more than a defined, or “bounded” physical playfield. This indication is consistent with the Specification’s disclosure that “the game world corresponds to an actual area of the physical world (such as the planet Earth or New York City).” Ex. 1001, 10:58–61. Thus, in one disclosed embodiment, the physical playfield is the entire (unbounded) world. We are persuaded that the Specification’s descriptions of various embodiments with defined playfields and undefined playfields support construing the scope of a “physical playfield” as encompassing defined boundaries, or a “bounded” playfield, as well as a “physical playfield” with undefined boundaries, or an “unbounded” playfield. Limiting the claim term to only “bounded” play spaces would read out broader embodiments from the claim scope. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.”). We, therefore, agree at this juncture with Petitioner’s claim construction analysis, and note that the alleged goal of improving the safety in virtual reality gaming does not support Patent Owner’s construction. Paper 10, 2 (Petitioner arguing that by describing an augmented reality system where a user can view the physical surroundings, a “bounded” physical playfield is not necessary). Further, we find unpersuasive, at this juncture, Patent Owner’s arguments related to embodiments of how the information about the playfield is captured and stored to construct the playfield and perform scaling. Prelim. Resp. 7−13. As Petitioner notes, and we agree, none of these features are recited in the independent claims. Paper 10, 2. And, to the extent there is a distinction between being “on” or “off” the “physical playfield” as Patent Owner argues, the claim language requires no such determination or detection.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“physical playfield” as properly construed. Prelim. Resp. 30. As discussed in our claim construction above, we are not persuaded that the claim term “physical playfield” is limited to a bounded physical play space. However, even under the Patent Owner’s proposed narrower construction, we are sufficiently persuaded that the combination teaches a bounded physical play space. Jaszlics discloses that its system creates virtual elements in theme parks and entertainment-oriented environments. Ex. 1003, 2:14–16, 2:67– 3:1; see id. at 18:48–55. We are sufficiently persuaded that a theme park is a bounded physical play space. In addition, Jaszlics discloses training armored vehicle crews by using both virtual vehicles and actual vehicles moving over real terrain. Ex. 1003, 1:38–60. We are sufficiently persuaded that a skilled artisan would have envisioned that such training occurs on a military base, which is bounded.8 Jaszlics further discloses that its training field includes boundary markers. Ex. 1003, Fig. 15, 10:1–9. We are sufficiently persuaded that the tank training field of Jaszlics, which has boundary markers and is located on a military base, is a bounded physical play space. Therefore, even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction, we are sufficiently persuaded that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that a user would have played at least some of the video games provided by the combined system of Jaszlics and Piekarski in a bounded physical play space such as a theme park or a military base. slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,585,476 - PTAB · Sep 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00141 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Remand
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Nishida-based challenges.
RulingsRemand decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 B2 (“the ’749 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenges the patentability of claims 1–21 of the ’749 patent. Nike, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)2 filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 10) and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 13). We discretionarily denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Paper 20. Petitioner filed a request for Director Review of the Decision denying institution. Paper 21. Director Review was granted, the Decision denying institution of inter partes review was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Board. Id. at 4. Specifically, the case was “remanded to the Board with instructions to consider Petitioner’s Nishida grounds and to determine whether the Petition should be instituted.” Id. at 3–4.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’749” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“In support of Petitioner’s position, Dr. Adanur testifies that “Nishida discloses that the unfinished surface area 1.1 is part of the web 1 itself,” that Nishida discloses that the computer-controlled process can (using Nishida’s phrase) “put in” up to seven different textile fibers or yarns into the web of material in one operation, and that, “[t]hus, Nishida discloses simultaneously knitting its layouts 2 and tongue 40 (each a ‘textile element’) with the unfinished surface area 1.1 (a ‘surrounding textile structure’).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 216 (citing Ex. 1022, 2:12–20, 4:47–55, 5:45–49). For purposes of institution, we credit that testimony over the testimony of Dr. Pastore, because, on the current record, we regard Dr. Adanur’s testimony as more consistent with the evidence. This and the other related issues may be explored more fully during the trial.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’749 patent in March 2004 would have been someone with at least a few years of experience in knit materials and knitting methods and machines that can be used in making footwear, or a bachelor’s degree in textile-related sciences, engineering, or industrial product design, or equivalent academic or work experience, including in the footwear industry. EX1002, ¶68. Such a person of ordinary skill would have at least a general understanding of general construction processes and materials used in the manufacturing process of fabric-based articles. For individuals with a lower educational level, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s working experience compensates for any such lower educational level, or vice versa. See id. Pet. 23–24. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response, Nike applies Skechers’ definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - 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 - Tesla, Inc. v. Graphite Charging Company LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00388 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Wang and Wang with AESO did not establish the claimed analysis, and Cooley did not disclose reducing current power consumption.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the claims require a decision engine to perform those elements.” Tr. 48:17– 20. In light of this, we fail to understand the basis for Patent Owner’s objection to the characterization of the level of ordinary skill involving experience with “intelligent” techniques or devices that control grid electricity. We determine that Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the Specification and the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We, therefore, apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner (PO Resp. 12, 49–50) points to the Specification’s list of “[e]xamples of power reduction actions.” Ex. 1001, 8:47–63. Patent Owner asserts that the list includes numerous examples of power reductions that occur in the present and one that takes place in the future—namely, “scheduling nonessential operations at a different time (e.g., nonessential software or hardware upgrades).” Ex. 1001, 8:61–62 (cited at PO Resp. 12, 50). We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention (PO Resp. 12) that the applicant, by including the term “current” in the claims, intentionally narrowed the claims to power consumption reductions that occur temporally in the present, rather than those that occur in the future. See Pet. Reply 6–7 (Petitioner asserting that Patent Owner’s position is “inconsistent with the specification’s examples,” but then arguing that the Specification does not support that position rather than pointing to any purported inconsistencies). Because the independent claims recite the term “current,” construing the term in the temporal sense is not, as Petitioner argues, importing into the claims an example from the Specification. See Pet. Reply 8.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Given the interchangeable nature taught for various features of Wang’s embodiments, it would have been a routine and obvious matter for a POSA to combine aspects from Wang’s various embodiments (e.g., data acquisition, internal hardware, data analysis performed by the UMC receiver 400 and/or the display 200). Moreover, many of Wang’s embodiments–particularly of specific smart appliance types– include common components, thus further confirming combinability of aspects of the disclosed embodiments. A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining features of the embodiments together. Id. at 77–78 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 201–203). We determine that these reasons are inadequate and too generic to satisfy Petitioner’s burden as they lack a clear explanation of what and how “aspects from Wang’s various embodiments” are proposed to be combined along with reasoning specific to that proposal. Petitioner, for example, does not explain adequately or persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added a display that purportedly receives and analyzes data to a “smart appliance,” when that appliance already has an application processor that purportedly receives and analyzes the same data. It is not enough for Petitioner to allege that all of the elements of the challenged claims can be found somewhere in the various embodiments of Wang; Petitioner must also show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the elements in the manner as arranged in the challenged claims. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). We find Petitioner has not shown an adequate reason to combine embodiments.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentable
“We determine that these reasons are inadequate and too generic to satisfy Petitioner’s burden as they lack a clear explanation of what and how “aspects from Wang’s various embodiments” are proposed to be combined along with reasoning specific to that proposal. Petitioner, for example, does not explain adequately or persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added a display that purportedly receives and analyzes data to a “smart appliance,” when that appliance already has an application processor that purportedly receives and analyzes the same data. It is not enough for Petitioner to allege that all of the elements of the challenged claims can be found somewhere in the various embodiments of Wang; Petitioner must also show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the elements in the manner as arranged in the challenged claims. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). We find Petitioner has not shown an adequate reason to combine embodiments.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,291,243 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,291,243 - 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 - Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00460 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–21 under Nishida grounds and claims 11 and 21 also over Nishida with Zuckerman; Zuckerman-only grounds fail for lack of a surrounding structure.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in textile engineering, mechanical engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience working with knitted textiles for use in fabric-based articles, including apparel such as footwear. Ex.1003, ¶¶34-37. For individuals with different educational backgrounds, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s additional experience compensates for any differences in that person’s education as stated above. Id., ¶37. Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 13. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Id. at 99:12–25. Dr. Brookstein stated during his deposition that he has “49 years of experience of teaching textile engineering.” Id. at 97:6–8. We credit Dr. Brookstein’s testimony over that of Dr. Pastore’s because it is consistent with the reference and based on decades of experience in the textile field. Nishida’s claim 1 states that, “during the production of the material web (1), [shoe patterns] . . . are produced by . . . a textile production method within the material web.” Ex. 1005, 9. We find that Nishida’s claim language discloses the recited, “simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure.”” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We find the District Court’s reasoning persuasive, and we, like the District Court, decline to adopt Petitioner’s overly broad proposed construction. However, for purposes of deciding the dispositive fact issue before us, we need not determine the precise boundaries of “surrounding textile structure,” for example whether it completely or mostly encircles the textile element, and if “mostly,” what percentage of encircling is required. See Pet. Reply 2 (Petitioner characterizing Patent Owner’s position as “mostly” means over 50%); id. at 4 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that the “surrounding” need not be complete, i.e., 100%); PO Sur-reply 3–4 (Patent Owner arguing that “Zuckerman’s textile structures . . . each abut only about 25% of the periphery of Zuckerman’s blank.”). We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the portion of Zuckerman’s strip 13 in purple to surround the green blank 11 (textile element) under any reasonable construction of “surrounding textile structure.” Dr. Pastore testifies that “Zuckerman discloses two separate textile structures adjacent the blank—one on each side . . . they abut only two sides of Zuckerman’s blank, with each structure abutting only about a quarter of the blank’s periphery,” and opines that “a POSITA would not have understood these two separate structures, designated by purple in the figure above, to be a textile structure ‘surrounding’ the blank [shown in green].” Ex. 2003 ¶ 54. We find Dr. Pastore’s tesimony credible as it is consistent with Zuckerman’s Figure and with the plain and ordinary meaning of “surrounding” and with the Specification of the ’749 patent (particularly Figure 9). Dr. Brookstein’s testimony, on the other hand, is based on Petitioner’s overly broad proposed construction—that any part of a textile area that is not a textile element is “surrounding textile structure”—” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 8,266,749 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749
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.