- Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Google LLC et al. v. Headwater Research LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00341 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17, 19, 21–27, 29, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over TS-23.140 and Ogawa.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the full record, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’733 patent and the asserted prior art. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–31). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposal is encompassed by Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply 4. Our analysis below would not change, if we used Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on the full record, we do not need to interpret expressly any claim term. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“o) Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness Patent Owner does not present any arguments or evidence regarding any objective indicia of nonobviousness for any of the challenged claims. See PO Resp.” slip op. at 49
Patent outcomesUS 8,406,733 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,406,733 - Visa, Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 22, 2025 · IPR2024-00488 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable because the Petition did not establish the claimed second OVER file over Oborne or a sufficient basis to combine Stafford and Purves.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. Inst. Dec. 9–13 (referring to the ’854 patent Specification, the language of claim 1, and Dr. Shamos’s testimony). However, we did not determine whether an “OVER file” included “tokens” as a general matter, or further elaborate on what additional characteristics might be required to qualify as an “OVER file,” because it was not necessary for purposes of Institution. Id. Moreover, we determined that Petitioner had made a sufficient showing that Oborne’s tokens qualified as “OVER files.” Id. at 11, 24–31. Patent Owner argues that no construction is required, but, regardless, “the claims may be confirmed under the Board’s construction.” PO Resp. 11; Sur-reply 1. Petitioner also does not dispute our preliminary construction. Reply 1. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is treating the Institution Decision’s construction “as requiring that the virtual representation itself (not merely the OVER file) be used for verification of the credential,” even though “the claims impose no such requirement on the virtual representation.” Reply 1–2 (citing PO Resp. 49–50). “For example,” Petitioner asserts, “verification in subsequent claim elements involves the OVER file, and while the OVER file ‘compris[es]’ the virtual representation, it may encompass other things, as PO’s expert admits.” Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1047, 30:16–31:24; Ex. 1048 ¶ 27). We will consider this issue further below when construing the term “verified by an issuing agency.” Based on the full trial record, we maintain our determination in the” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In its Response, Patent Owner stated that it “agrees in substance with the Board’s construction” of this term, and clarified its understanding of that construction as requiring that “the issuing agency has verified the ‘virtual representation’ (and not the ‘credential’) to be ‘a first official representation of the original credential.’” PO Resp. 11–12. In its Reply, Petitioner points to Patent Owner’s reliance on an example in the ’854 patent Specification involving the checking of a driver’s license identification number against a DMV database to show verification of information in an OVER File generation request. Reply 2 (citing PO Resp. 14–16; Ex. 1002, 6:35–39, 6:54–65). Based on this portion of the Patent Owner Response, as well as portions of Dr. Malek’s deposition, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner “admits that a virtual representation of the credential may be ‘verified by an issuing agency’ by checking credential data against an issuing agency database.” Id. (citing Ex. 1047, 37:24–41:1, 41:2–22). In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner misinterprets its discussion of the DMV example, and contends that what Patent Owner was actually arguing based on that example is that the “credential” (the “OVER file”) is verified, not that “credential data” is verified. PO Sur-reply 1–3. After considering the full trial record, we adhere to the construction in our Institution Decision interpreting the claim language at issue “to require that an issuing agency ha[s] verified a virtual representation in an OVER file as being an official representation of a credential.” Inst. Dec. 15–16. In light of Patent Owner’s statements in its Sur-reply, we further clarify that this construction encompasses (1) considering the OVER file as the credential and verifying the OVER file, or (2) verifying a virtual representation of the credential contained within the OVER file.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner “agrees with [Petitioner’s proposed] definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 37–41). In the Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art to be reasonable and consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the prior art of record. Inst. Dec. 8. Given that Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, we continue to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Although we agree with Petitioner that Oborne teaches that “‘device fingerprinting may be utilized’ to provide ‘additional security’ for use of Oborne’s tokens,” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 26 (emphasis added)), we do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments related to “device fingerprinting.” Petitioner also relies on testimony from Dr. Shamos to support its position. However, Dr. Shamos’s cited testimony in paragraph 239 merely repeats what is stated in the Petition, does not provide citation to any other evidence of record, and does not provide any further explanation as to why one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use device fingerprinting to tie a given token to a given device such that the token for the second device would be invalid in the first device. Ex. 1005 ¶ 239. Dr. Shamos refers to Oborne’s disclosures on “digital fingerprinting” and a client’s MAC address in the token data structure. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 26, 47). We have considered Petitioner’s arguments in light of Oborne’s disclosure, but find Dr. Malek’s responsive testimony to be more persuasive. We agree with Dr. Malek that, in Oborne, “device fingerprinting simply refers to identifying a device and the user associated with that device.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 111. Specifically, paragraph 26 of Oborne (quoted above) discloses authentication of a user, where “device fingerprinting” is utilized to verify a user’s identity where a user exclusively uses a client device such as a smartphone or laptop computer. Ex. 1011 ¶ 26 (emphasis added). The use of the device fingering for determining the device identity in order to authenticate a user is corroborated by the disclosures in paragraph 47 of Oborne which refer, in part, to the “<client_details” which can include a “<client_type>smartphone” and “client_fingerprint>font list, MAC address, memory size, memory.” Id. ¶ 47 (emphasis added). So, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, we do not discern any disclosure in Oborne that “device fingerprinting” ties a token to a particular device. See Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 26, 47. Rather, Oborne’s disclosures support Dr. Malek’s testimony that “device fingerprinting could be used to limit a token to a set of fingerprinted devices, such as each device belonging to the user.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 113. Moreover, Petitioner (and Dr. Shamos’s) statement that “the first device’s fingerprint would not match” the fingerprint for the second device merely provides a possible outcome of device fingerprinting, but does not explain why one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use device fingerprinting to make the “second device’s token . . . invalid in the first device,” or make the “token for a second device . . . a new credential,” or point to disclosures in Oborne that would support such a motivation. Id. Thus, we find that Petitioner’s contentions as to this limitation lack sufficient specificity to explain how Oborne teaches the limitation. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Ultimately, it is the petitioner’s burden to present a clear argument.”); Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’ ” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). We further agree with Patent Owner that Oborne’s disclosure of” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,954,854 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,954,854 - Visa, Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00486 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–6, 8–18, and 21–33 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 7, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of work involving electronic payment systems, network authentication systems, or related areas.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 89–94). Petitioner further states that a person of ordinary skill “could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of these fields.” Id. We adopted this proposed level of skill for the Institution Decision. See Dec. 6– 7. Patent Owner agrees with this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 37–41). For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’531 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. Dec. 9. We also explained that we did not need to determine whether the term “OVER file” 8 necessarily includes “tokens” as a general matter, or further elaborate on what additional characteristics might be required to qualify as an “OVER file” for purposes of institution. Id. We also determined that Petitioner had made a sufficient showing for purposes of institution that Oborne’s tokens qualify as “OVER files.” Id. at 10, 23–27. In its Response, Patent Owner states that no construction of “OVER file” is required and that “the claims may be confirmed under the Board’s construction.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 43, 46–48). In its Reply, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is treating the Institution Decision’s construction “as requiring that the virtual representation itself (not merely the OVER file) be used for verification of the credential,” even though “the claims impose no such requirement on the virtual representation.” Pet. Reply 1–2 (citing PO Resp. 54). “For example,” Petitioner asserts, “verification in subsequent claim elements involves a scan associated with the OVER file, and while the OVER file ‘compris[es]’ the virtual representation, it may encompass other things.” Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1047, 30:16–31:24; Ex. 1048 ¶ 27). We will consider this issue further below when construing the term “verified by an issuing agency.” Based on the full trial record, we maintain our determination in the Institution Decision that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. See Dec. 9.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner has provided sufficient articulated reasoning to support the rationale for the combination of Oborne and Purves for the teaching of the limitation “requesting the credential.” As Petitioner points out (Pet. Reply 15), in the discussion of claim 23, the Petition refers to claim 22, which requires “generat[ion] of the credential.” IPR487, Pet. 37; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 301. That discussion explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Oborne and Purves because “the teachings of Purves would be recognized as useful to add new credentials to the digital wallet of Oborne’s PPT apparatus (for example, where a user had not yet added any credentials, or where adding further credentials were desired).” IPR487, Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 295). Dr. Shamos testifies that the credential that Purves teaches is a new gift card or reloadable prepaid card. Ex. 1005 ¶ 294 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 83). The Petition explains that a person of skill “would generate the new credential,” as Purves teaches that a customer may obtain a new gift card or prepaid card. IPR487, Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 83). Dr. Shamos testifies that “when the processor determines that no matching credential is stored” “a new credential would be generated because “the purpose of Oborne’s tokens is to represent a credential” and “by generating the new credential, the user becomes able to benefit from 9 We note that Patent Owner does not assert that there would be any security concerns with the combination of Oborne and Purves under this ground, which is based on the Purves’ embodiment concerning requests for a gift card or prepaid card credential. See PO Resp. 48–50. 49 Oborne’s tokenization system, and if the credential was already stored, there would be no reason to generate it, since it would already exist.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 298. For claim 23, which “requests the credential from the issuing agency,” Dr. Shamos further testifies that “when new credentials were generated upon user request, such as the gift and prepaid cards taught by Purves. . ., it would be natural for the issuer to store such new credentials, at least until they were sent to the recipient, and more practically for as long as they remained valid, so that the issuer’s system would confirm their existence and validity.” Id. ¶ 304. Patent Owner does not present any arguments challenging the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing as to claim 22. As explained for claim 22, Petitioner relies upon Purves to teach the generation of a credential like a gift card or reloadable prepaid card, which would be useful to have as a credential in Oborne, and Patent Owner does not dispute this rationale. IPR487, Pet. 35; see generally PO Resp. As Petitioner also explains, a user would want to store credentials like a gift card or reloadable prepaid card in Oborne’s PPT, at least until they were sent to the recipient, “and more practically for as long as they remained valid, so that the issuer’s systems could confirm their existence.” IPR487, Pet. 38. As Dr. Shamos testifies, this is taught by Purves’ disclosure of retrieving the user’s “payment account information from the payment account issuer,” with user’s consent, and the issuer responding with information for data for establishing a virtual wallet including a “payment account in a virtual wallet.” See Ex. 1005 ¶ 301 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 83, 107–108 (“The user may then indicate that they desire to add a new payment account to their virtual wallet”)). Accordingly, 50” slip op. at 49
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We also find Dr. Malek’s testimony on this point more persuasive than Dr. Shamos’s testimony. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 165–170; Ex. 1048 ¶¶ 35–39; 72 Pet. Reply 27–28 (citing Ex. 1048 ¶¶ 55–60). For example, Dr. Shamos testifies that the combination’s use of obscured credential images would not “have risked exposure of the key signatures themselves since the image does not depict or otherwise convey the key signatures.” Ex. 1048 ¶ 37. However, although Petitioner fails to sufficiently explain the proposed combination, as discussed above, presumably there is some relationship between the credential image and the key signatures, since the proposed combination purportedly allows for the user to identify items that were previously selected for release, in order to provide the relevant key signatures to the recipient. Pet. 62–63; Ex. 1005 ¶ 367; Ex. 1048 ¶ 33. In contrast, Dr. Malek testifies, and we agree, that providing an unencrypted image of a credit card, for example, would inform potential attackers of the payload of the credential that is being attempted to be securely transmitted which is a security vulnerability. Ex. 2009 ¶ 169. Although Dr. Shamos testifies that Purves teaches associating wallet items with obscured or representative images and that such representative images were routinely used in virtual wallets, Ex. 1048 ¶¶ 35, 38 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 85), we do not find this persuasive in the context of the proposed combination with Stafford’s system for securely storing, transmitting, and authenticating credential information relating to an entity, with use of key signatures. Ex. 2009 ¶ 160; Ex. 1012 ¶ 2. Accordingly, Petitioner’s generic reasons for the proposed combination, coupled with Petitioner’s lack of specificity as to the proposed combination, leads us to determine that Petitioner’s reasons explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Stafford and 73 Purves are not persuasive in light of the teachings of those references and the testimonial evidence provided by Dr. Shamos, as discussed above. Further, as also discussed, the prior art fails to teach an “OVER engine” as claimed. Therefore, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims 1, 15, and 21 are unpatentable over Stafford and Purves. We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–5, 7–14, 16, 18–20, 22–26, and 28–33, which depend from claims 1, 15, and 21, are unpatentable over Stafford and Purves. Further, we have reviewed Petitioner’s showing for the obviousness of claims 2, 6, 17, and 27 over Stafford, Purves, and Neafsey (Pet. 79–81), and the argument and evidence presented fail to remedy the deficiencies of the associated independent claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, 17, and 27, are unpatentable over Stafford, Purves, and Neafsey.” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS 9,251,531 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,251,531 - AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. Daingean Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00402 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted Patent Owner’s revised non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 1–4 and substituting claims 7 and 8, which Petitioner did not prove unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). A “patent owner bears the burden of persuasion to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the motion to amend complies” with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(d)(1). Specifically, a patent owner must demonstrate the following: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (3) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent; and (4) the amendment does not introduce new matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)–(b). For the reasons explained below, Patent Owner satisfies its burden of persuasion to show that the amendments comply with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Both parties rely on expert testimony for their respective positions relating to the number of years of experience needed to attain ordinary skill, but neither expert cites supporting evidence for their testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 33; Ex. 2002 ¶ 15. Our decision is the same regardless of whether the length of experience is two years or three. We find Patent Owner’s proposed “wireless communications” is more consistent with the ’958 patent than Petitioner’s proposed “telecommunication,” which encompasses a variety of technologies including, e.g., landline and wireless telephones, cable, and satellite. See Ex. 1001, 1:11–62 (describing the invention in terms of wireless communications). Accordingly, we adopt a modified version of Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, substituting “wireless communications” for “telecommunication.” Neither party, moreover, indicates the overall result would change based on a different definition.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the recited second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. The plain meaning of “first type” and “second type” indicates that the first type and second type are different in kind. RMTA 22 (App. A). Our interpretation is consistent with the Specification, which explains that second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. As Patent Owner points out, the ’958 patent discloses “first type of system information (1TYP SIB) is . . . essential . . . for initial system access” and “second type of system information (2TYP SIB) is nonessential system information . . . defined as all other types of information, and thus excludes the [] information required for initial access.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:34– 46); see also Ex. 1001, Abstract (interchangeably using the terms second type and non-essential). Despite Petitioner’s argument that this disclosure is non-limiting and directed to a disclaimed example embodiment (Opp. 8–9), Petitioner could not identify any embodiment, among the approximately forty disclosed embodiments, describing something other than the first type SIB being essential information and the second type SIB being non-essential information. Tr. 22:18–26. Even the Petition acknowledges that “the ’958 Patent further classifies a second type of system information, the ‘non-essential’ SI, which is defined as all other types of information excluding that first type of information required for initial access.” Pet. 5. Furthermore, the prior art of record suggests that a person of ordinary skill would have understood second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 48 (describing two categories of system information, “essential SI” and “Other SI”). Patent Owner’s expert also understood the recited first and second type SIBs as being mutually exclusive. See Ex. 1011, 49:10–13. For the above reasons, we do not agree with Petitioner that the recited second type SIB lacks any requirements, nor do we interpret claims 7 and 8 such that the first type SIB could be a second type SIB.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(d) Limitation 7h: Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments with respect to limitation 7h are insufficient because they fail to address the limitation as written and improperly incorporate previous arguments by reference. For example, Petitioner did not map the recited “group identifier” when opposing Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend. See Opp. 16–17. In its Sur-reply, Petitioner contends that limitation 7h’s requirement of transmitting the group identifier was previously “set out in Patent Owner’s prior papers,” but does not refer to any specific papers or exhibits. Pet. Surreply 11–12. We decline to search for and piece together Petitioner’s arguments and evidence to develop a persuasive theory of unpatentability. See 37 C.F.R. section 42.6(a)(3). Petitioner similarly failed to address adequately where Lee discloses or suggests the recited “compressed format” and “plural parameters.” See Opp. 16–17. Aside from the above concerns, we also do not see sufficient explanation with respect to limitation 7h’s requirement that the transmitting by broadcast be based on a comparison of the value tag. Petitioner argues that, because Patent Owner does not dispute limitation 7g, “it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the same value tag[] to determine the system information broadcast in Lee’s compressed format embodiment.” Pet. Sur-reply 12. This conclusory statement is not supported by any citations to evidence and was improperly introduced in the Sur-reply. Moreover, whether it was obvious to determine what system information is broadcast is not commensurate with the claim scope because limitation 7h requires that the broadcasting (not the broadcast content) be based on a comparison of the value tag. See supra III.B.4 and IV.B. Further, we are not persuaded that Lee’s transmitting by broadcast is” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 10,841,958 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,841,958 - Apple Inc. v. DH International Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00172 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 10–12, and 19 are obvious over Suga and Gorsuch.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim in the ’294 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’294 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends: A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’294 Patent (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or in a similar discipline with at least two years of experience with wireless communication devices and networks. More education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 34). Patent Owner states that it “agrees with Petitioner on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 26–29).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Both parties rely on the language of claim 1 and the ’294 patent specification to support their respective constructions, and they emphasize that a user’s selective triggering of the control device does not issue different activation commands or control which data conveyance operation is used. Claim 1 recites an “invariable activation command” as a command that is “issued when said control device is selectively triggered by the user.” selectively trigger a control device “via one of a button, a keypad, a tactile screen, and a biometric parameter detector,” e.g., by entering a PIN that is authenticated, in order for an invariable activation command to be issued. Id. at 8:43–50, 10:26–29, 19:3–5. The claimed function of an invariable activation command is to “initiate[]” either a “first data conveyance operation” or a “second data conveyance operation” depending on whether “said switching element is in said first state” or “in said second state.” As explained above, the state of the switching element depends on whether or not an “activation cue” has been received by a “cue receiver.” The ’294 patent specification confirms the operation. Id. at 10:26–36, 15:14–28. The parties joust over the proper terminology for characterizing an “invariable” activation command, but they appear to agree on how the claimed cell phone and method work. The ’294 patent specification makes clear that the activation command is “invariable” in the sense that whenever a user selectively triggers the control device on the cell phone, for example by pressing a button on a keypad, the same command is issued to initiate a data conveyance operation regardless of the “state” of the “switching element” (i.e., in a “first state” or “second state”). The user cannot select or issue different activation commands. The selection of which of the two possible data conveyance operations will be initiated by selectively triggering the control device depends not on the activation command—it is always the same—but on whether the switching element has received an activation cue (“first state”) or not (“second state”). The ’294 patent neatly summarizes that “[t]he same invariable activation command will thus be issued upon [the] control device being triggered, and it is the state of [the]” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The ’294 patent claims and specification make clear that the switching element switches between a “first state” and a “second state” depending on whether or not an activation cue is received. Ex. 1001, 9:28–41, 14:53–59. The state of the switch, in turn, “allow[s] data to be conveyed according to alternate data conveyance operations.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the claim limitation is recited as a “data conveyance switching element,” not a “data switch,” because the switching element allows the device to switch between alternate operations for conveying data from the cellular phone to an external data exchange device. Id. Patent Owner’s proposed construction “conflicts with the express disclosure of the ’294 Patent.” See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (The “specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”) (citation omitted). On the present record, we determine that no further construction of claim terms is necessary to determine whether to institute a trial in this case. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,022,294 - Apple Inc. v. DH International Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00173 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1–13 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 371 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim in the ’333 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of the ’333 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. We adopt the parties’ agreed level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the description in the ’333 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“element” (limitation [1(e)]) onto a McGregor “device” placed in an RF field generated by Palmer’s reader/writer device. Pet. 28–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105), 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–127). The Petition is unclear as to which McGregor device is being referenced, e.g., the smart card of Figure 2, the wallet embodiment of Figure 4, or some combination of embodiments disclosed in McGregor and Palmer. Id. Regardless, the proposed modification of McGregor in view of Palmer, as we understand it, is based on conclusory reasoning and appears to be motivated by hindsight rather than the teachings of the applied references. Prelim. Resp. 38–40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 97–102). 7 Ground 2 challenges independent claim 11 for asserted obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle. The Petition’s reliance on Tuttle for its teaching of distinct data transmitter, data receiver, and cue receiver ports does not alter our analysis for claim 11. Pet. 55–62. POSITA would have understood that a series of instructions would be programmed into McGregor’s microprocessor to function as a switching element (pursuant to Palmer’s teachings), and as described.in the ’333 Patent. See Claim [1(b)]; see ’333 Patent, 6:9-14. Accordingly, McGregor’s microprocessor is a switching element (1) that is placed into an activated state after receiving a handshake signal (an activation cue) that establishes a communication during the handshake process and (2) that remains in an inactivated state if no reader/writer device is detected (no activation cue). Ex. 1003 ¶ 127 (emphases added). Dr. Buehrer’s citation to the ’333 patent, without explaining his mapping of limitation [1(e)] onto McGregor-Palmer beyond a general reference to 10-plus pages of limitation [1(b)] “control device” analysis, suggests hindsight reasoning. Id; see also Pet. 42 (generally referring to limitation [1(b)]). The Petition’s analysis, moreover, does not address why or how McGregor’s microprocessor would “accordingly” act as a data conveyance switching element or why a POSITA would want to program McGregor’s microprocessor to execute such a switching function in view of Palmer. We find the Petition and Dr. Buehrer’s testimony lacking in articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings sufficient to support the conclusion that limitation [1(e)] reads on the proposed McGregor-Palmer combination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“element” (limitation [1(e)]) onto a McGregor “device” placed in an RF field generated by Palmer’s reader/writer device. Pet. 28–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105), 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–127). The Petition is unclear as to which McGregor device is being referenced, e.g., the smart card of Figure 2, the wallet embodiment of Figure 4, or some combination of embodiments disclosed in McGregor and Palmer. Id. Regardless, the proposed modification of McGregor in view of Palmer, as we understand it, is based on conclusory reasoning and appears to be motivated by hindsight rather than the teachings of the applied references. Prelim. Resp. 38–40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 97–102). 7 Ground 2 challenges independent claim 11 for asserted obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle. The Petition’s reliance on Tuttle for its teaching of distinct data transmitter, data receiver, and cue receiver ports does not alter our analysis for claim 11. Pet. 55–62. POSITA would have understood that a series of instructions would be programmed into McGregor’s microprocessor to function as a switching element (pursuant to Palmer’s teachings), and as described.in the ’333 Patent. See Claim [1(b)]; see ’333 Patent, 6:9-14. Accordingly, McGregor’s microprocessor is a switching element (1) that is placed into an activated state after receiving a handshake signal (an activation cue) that establishes a communication during the handshake process and (2) that remains in an inactivated state if no reader/writer device is detected (no activation cue). Ex. 1003 ¶ 127 (emphases added). Dr. Buehrer’s citation to the ’333 patent, without explaining his mapping of limitation [1(e)] onto McGregor-Palmer beyond a general reference to 10-plus pages of limitation [1(b)] “control device” analysis, suggests hindsight reasoning. Id; see also Pet. 42 (generally referring to limitation [1(b)]). The Petition’s analysis, moreover, does not address why or how McGregor’s microprocessor would “accordingly” act as a data conveyance switching element or why a POSITA would want to program McGregor’s microprocessor to execute such a switching function in view of Palmer. We find the Petition and Dr. Buehrer’s testimony lacking in articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings sufficient to support the conclusion that limitation [1(e)] reads on the proposed McGregor-Palmer combination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). The Petition does assert an obviousness theory within the analysis of the “control device” limitation [1(b)]. Pet. 25–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85– 109). The Petition asserts that a “POSITA would have been motivated to implement McGregor’s device pursuant to Palmer such that the security code would be automatically transmitted when the device detects the receive the security code.” Pet. 28; see also id. at 31 (“A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Palmer’s (1) RF field detection and handshake processes and (2) Palmer’s transceiver hardware in McGregor’s device.”) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105). We find the Petition’s obviousness theory to be inherently inconsistent and non-specific with regard to the “data conveyance switching element” recited in limitation [1(e)].” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,628,333 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00351 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–26 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id. Under the second Fintiv factor, the proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision weighs against exercising our authority to deny institution because there is no trial date scheduled. Id. at 9; see Ex. 1031, 3. slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “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). The Board, however, has discretion to deny a petition even when a petitioner meets that threshold. Id.; see, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). For the reasons that follow, we grant institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner further states that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA.” Id. Patent Owner submits a similar definition (see Prelim. Resp. 13–14), but states that a POSITA “would understand that . . . the subject of the patent is a software-based solution to broadcasting multimedia streams, and the skillset and expertise in hardware-based systems would not make one knowledgeable about software-based systems.” Prelim. Resp. 13–14. We determine that no express finding is necessary, on the present record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA’s work experience does not change our analysis or conclusions based on the present record. Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Claim 1 does not limit the “caching unit” in any way. With this in mind, we preliminarily agree that Farber discloses the subject matter of limitation 1a sufficiently to meet Petitioner’s burden on institution. b.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,140,441 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00350 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13 for all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“After Patent Owner made these arguments, though, the district court in the Florida Litigation (1) stayed all deadlines indefinitely and (2) said that the October trial will not go forward as scheduled. Ex. 1028, 3. “A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Conclusion At this stage and on this record, it is reasonably likely that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Avellan. The Petition’s merits are compelling because Petitioner’s challenge plainly leads to a conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelOther
“B. Merits 1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to the Petition, Here, a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed invention would have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols. . . . A person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could also meet the standard. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 68–69). Patent Owner provides a different definition: A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions in the ‘002 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience working in the field of software systems used in generating and broadcasting multimedia streams. An individual with less technical education but more experience, or vice versa, could also qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 59) (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the definition must include experience in software systems because the invention is a software-based solution. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 60). At this stage, our decision would be the same under either definition. Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“There is no dispute that (1) Avellan’s user initiates the request and eventually receives the stream and (2) gateway server 134 receives a request for a media stream for playback on a broadcast channel. See id. at 32–39; Pet. 22. The issue here is whether claim 1 requires that the recited “content provider” originates the request. We agree with Petitioner that claim 1 does not require this. Prelim. Reply 7. Apart from being received from the content provider, claim 1 does not limit the request’s origin in any way. Rather, claim 1 only requires that the request is received from the content provider. Ex. 1001, 14:51–54. Claim 1 recites “comprising” in the preamble of the method (id. at 14:50), which is a encompasses user-originated requests that are received from other entities. With this understanding of the claim, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a through its communication path from network 150 to user computers 1041–104n via gateway platforms 1301–130n. Pet. 22. That is, Avellan’s gateway platform 134 receives a request for at least one media stream, and claim 1 does not exclude user-originated requests. See id. We agree that the content can be video from CNN, BBC, ESPN, or other live-streaming television feeds. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:18–21). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a. See id. at 22. ii. Remaining Limitations Apart from the arguments discussed above, Patent Owner does not present arguments specifically directed to the other limitations of claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. We determine that Petitioner’s arguments made in connection with those limitations are sufficient at this stage and on this record. Pet. 24–32. We agree with Petitioner that Avellan teaches obtaining content from the networks 150 and 152, as recited in 1b; rendering a webpage by a browser at gateway 134, as recited in 1c; generating the screen captures at gateway 134, as recited in 1d; and assembling and providing the media stream when gateway server 134 compresses the image or video format and sends it to the browser 106, as recited in 1e and 1f. Id. at 24–29. Petitioner has provided a sufficient rationale at this stage why a method with the subject matter recited in lg and 1h would have been obvious. Id. at 29– 32. Conclusion At this stage and on this record, it is reasonably likely that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Avellan. The Petition’s merits are compelling because Petitioner’s challenge plainly leads to a conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 12
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,524,002 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00349 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Avellan anticipates claim 1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id. slip op. at 6
- Skill levelOther
“B. Merits 1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to the Petition, A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed invention would have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols. Furthermore, a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 68). Patent Owner provides a different definition: A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed inventions in the ‘074 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience working in the field of software systems used in generating and broadcasting multimedia streams. An individual with less technical education but more experience, or vice versa, could also qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 58) (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the definition must include experience in software systems because the invention is a software-based solution. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 59). Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Apart from being received from the content provider, claim 1 does not limit the request’s origin in any way. Rather, claim 1 only requires that the request is received from the content provider. Ex. 1001, 14:48–50. Claim 1 recites “comprising” in the preamble of the method (id. at 14:47), which is a term that does not exclude additional, unrecited steps. Thus, claim 1 encompasses user-originated requests that are received from other entities. With this understanding of the claim, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a through its communication path from network 150 to user computers 1041–104n via gateway platforms 1301–130n and broadcast device 102. Pet. 17–18. That is, Avellan’s gateway platform 134 receives a request from broadcast device 102 for at least one media stream, and claim 1 does not exclude user-originated requests. See id. We agree that the content can be video from CNN, BBC, ESPN, or other live-streaming television feeds. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:18–21). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a. See id. at 17–19.” slip op. at 13
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,123,074 - Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00218 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Kim and Vayanos combination did not show that each individual bit indicates a separate time interval, as required by claims 1–12.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“limitation 1.2 because it is more consistent with the claim language and the specification of the ’416 patent. The language “each of the plurality of bits” clearly individualizes the “plurality of bits” and the language “indicates a respective time interval that physical shared channel resources are utilized to signal channels” clearly ascribes to each individual bit the function of identifying a time interval that is separate from the time interval(s) that the other individual bit(s) identify. Petitioner’s claim constriction argument largely ignores the words used in limitation 1.2. Petitioner fails to provide anything to explain how or why the plain meaning of “each” and “respective” in the context of limitation 1.2 could be understood by a skilled artisan to connote something other than the plurality of bits individually identifying a separate and distinct time interval (i.e., a “one-to-one correspondence”). Petitioner similarly does not identify anything from the specification of the ’416 patent that would support deviating from the plain meaning of limitation 1.2. And Petitioner’s reliance on 3M Innovative Properties appears to miss the mark. Pet. Reply 7. In that case, the Federal Circuit held that, when a claim term has an “ascertainable definition in the body of the claim,” their “cases do not support prescribing a more particularized meaning unless a narrower construction is required by the specification or prosecution history.” 3M Innovative Properties Co., 725 F.3d at 1329. Here, however, Patent Owner is not attempting to import a more particularized meaning into limitation 1.2, but to demonstrate that the ’416 specification is consistent with the ascertainable definition of “each” and “respective” within the context of limitation 1.2. In particular, Patent Owner highlights that the ’416 specification describes the resource allocation technique as using an indicator bit, within a plurality of indicator bits, that has a one-to-one correspondence to a specific time window established for a Forward Access Channel (FACH). See Ex. 1001, 13:63–14:25, 14:44–53, Figs. 7, 9; PO Resp. 11–14, 19–20; PO Sur-reply 2–3; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 36–40, 49. And we agree that the ’416 specification informs, and is consistent with, the plain reading of limitation 1.2. See Ex. 1001, 13:63–14:25, 14:44–53, Figs. 7, 9. Therefore, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of limitation 1.2 requires all the plurality of bits to individually identify a separate and distinct time interval that physical shared channel resources are utilized to signal channels.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“PICH, which is communicated to Kim’s receiver, has a plurality of bits, the evidence fails to demonstrate sufficiently that each of those bits indicates a respective time interval that physical shared channel resources are utilized to signal channels, as limitation 1.2 recites. As Patent Owner correctly argues, the Vayanos paging indicators use multiple bits to indicate information about a single time interval in a frame, rather having several bits that individually identify a separate and distinct time interval. PO Resp. 39–41 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 67, 74–75). Vayanos teaches that “[t]he number of paging indicators (Np) in each PICH frame is configurable by the system and can take on a value of 18, 36, 72 or 144,” and that “[e]ach paging indicator is sent in 288/Np consecutive bits in the PICH frame, where 288/Np can take on a value of 16, 8, 4 or 2.” Ex. 1006, 3:26–34. As a result, if there are 18 (Np = 18) paging indicators, 288/NP = 288/18 = 16 (meaning that each paging indicator is 16 bits long), if there are 36 (Np = 36) paging indicators, 288/Np = 288/36 = 8 (meaning that each paging indicator is 8 bits long), if there are 72 (Np=72) paging indicators, 288/Np = 288/72= 4 (meaning that each paging indicator is 4 bits long), and if there are 144 (Np=144) paging indicators, 288/Np = 288/144 = 2 (meaning that each paging indicator is 2 bits long). Ex. 2001 ¶ 66. Each paging indicator (singular) taught by Vayanos includes multiple bits––each paging indicator (singular) has either 16, 8, 4 or 2 bits–– and Vayanos does not disclose or suggest a paging indicator that indicates a time interval with only a single bit. Id. And Petitioner does not cite Kim to show the number of bits used to indicate a time interval; only to show that a UE would receive broadcast information with paging information including paging indicators that identify a time interval in which physical shared channel resources are utilized to signal channels. See Pet. 40–49. Even accepting that the Kim/Vayanos combination discloses a UE receiving a paging indicator that is indicative of a time interval in which a Paging Channel PCH may be found or indicative of whether a frame will include a signaling channel (e.g., PCH) at a specific TTI within that frame, the combination does not disclose or suggest using a paging indicator that is a single bit indicating either of those time intervals. On the contrary, as noted above, Vayanos teaches that all paging indicators consist of multiple bits and, thus, the Kim/Vayanos combination discloses a UE that only receives and uses a plurality of bits to indicate a time interval that physical shared channel resources are utilized to signal channels. This is insufficient to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will be able to establish that the Kim/Vayanos combination discloses or suggests receiving a plurality of bits wherein the individual bits each identify a separate and distinct time interval. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the Kim/Vayanos combination discloses or suggests the subject matter limitation 1.2 recites. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Kim and Vayanos disclose or suggest broadcast information that includes a plurality of bits, wherein each of the plurality of bits indicates a respective time interval that physical shared channel resources are utilized to signal channels. This failing undermines Petitioner’s showing as to independent claims 1 and 7 (in the asserted Grounds 1 and 2) and, as a result, the same deficiency extends through to all of the dependent claims challenged in all of the grounds.4” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“sufficiently that the combination of Kim and Vayanos disclose or suggest broadcast information that includes a plurality of bits, wherein each of the plurality of bits indicates a respective time interval that physical shared channel resources are utilized to signal channels. This failing undermines Petitioner’s showing as to independent claims 1 and 7 (in the asserted Grounds 1 and 2) and, as a result, the same deficiency extends through to all of the dependent claims challenged in all of the grounds.4 IV. CONCLUSION Based on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’416 patent challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,136,416
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.