- Adc Solutions Auto LLC v. The Noco CompanyAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00671 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 15, 17, 18, 51, 54, and 57 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Richardson, Zhao, Yu, Paparrizos, and Dao.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“claimed priority date of July 3, 2014, would have been a person with at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or its equivalent and at least two years of experience in the field of electrical engineering including some experience with DC power supply or battery charger design[;] . . . [l]ess work experience could be compensated for by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–44; Ex. 1014, 10–11). Patent Owner “does not propose a different level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 19. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’243 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’243 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“As neither party proposes an express construction for our consideration and because we determine that claim construction is not necessary to decide whether to institute, we do not expressly construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teachings of Richardson and Zhao to achieve the subject matter of claim 1. For example, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Richardson’s system to include the USB input circuit of Zhao “to avoid the need to supply a proprietary charger or other type of AC ‘power brick’ that would be less ubiquitous or less standardized,” increase flexibility and convenience, and cater to consumer demand for USB technology. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89). Petitioner further alleges that the addition of a USB input circuit would provide for an alternative where traditional charging methods are lost, damaged, or otherwise unavailable. Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 88). Thus, Petitioner has provided sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the teachings of the applied references. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1005 ¶ 28 (emphasis added). Dr. MacCarley testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known what external battery charger could have been used and where to place it in Richardson’s system. Ex. 1044 ¶ 13. In particular, Dr. MacCarley explains that there are numerous points in the circuitry disclosed by Richardson where a charging pathway from an external battery charger (e.g. the “battery charger” that Richardson explains is “not shown”, EX1005, ¶ [0028]) could be connected to charge Richardson’s batteries. EX2010, 52:3–54:5. Any of these connection points would be a trivial modification of Richardson’s embodiment. A PHOSITA would have understood how to implement this type of well-known configuration of an external battery charger and associated charging circuitry, which would have been as simple as wiring connections to the terminal anode and cathode of the batteries. The simplicity of this connection is why it is not surprising that Richardson describes such a pathway and leaves it “not shown” in the figures. Id. We credit the testimony of Dr. MacCarley in this regard. Moreover, Dr. Fayed confirms that it was known to recharge a jump starter with a barrel charger. Ex. 2014 ¶ 23.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 11,584,243 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,584,243 - Adc Solutions Auto LLC v. The Noco CompanyAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00577 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 32, 38, 39, 47, 52, and 54 are unpatentable as obvious over Richardson and Zhao and over Yu and Paparrizos.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the claimed priority date of July 3, 2014, would have been a person with at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or its equivalent and at least two years of experience in the field of electrical engineering including some experience with DC power supply or battery charger design[;] . . . [l]ess work experience could be compensated for by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–42; Ex. 1014, 10–11). Patent Owner “does not propose a different level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 19. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’023 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’023 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits there are no formal claim constructions necessary in this proceeding.” Pet. 23. Patent Owner “does not propose any terms need to be construed.” PO Resp. 18. As neither party proposes an express construction for our consideration and because we determine that claim construction is not necessary to decide whether to institute, we do not expressly construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teachings of Richardson and Zhao to achieve the subject matter of claim 1. For example, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Richardson’s system to include the USB input circuit of Zhao to avoid the need to supply a proprietary charger or other type of AC ‘power brick’ that would be less ubiquitous or less standardized,” increase flexibility and convenience, and cater to consumer demand for USB technology. Pet 45–46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88– 89). Petitioner further alleges that the addition of a USB input circuit would provide for an alternative where traditional charging methods are lost, damaged. or otherwise unavailable. Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 88). Thus, Petitioner has provided sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the teachings of the applied references. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We acknowledge, but are not convinced by, Patent Owner’s arguments that the nature of Richardson requires the ability to charge a high capacity battery and rapid recharging and therefore would not have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to include Zhao’s USB charging circuit in Richardson. See PO Resp. 25–31. In particular, we are not persuaded that Richardson is limited to high capacity, rapid recharging of batteries as Patent Owner suggests. Instead, Richardson broadly describes “an apparatus and method for temporarily delivering supplemental power to the electrical system of a vehicle” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 6) where “[t]he jump starter 10 may be configured for 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 or 48 volts” (id. ¶ 34). According to Richardson, this may be achieved by using “two or more batteries of the same or different voltage levels . . . to achieve the voltage requirements of the vehicle to be started.” Id. By way of example, Richardson states that “if the batteries 23 are both 12-volt batteries, the system may be configured for 12- or 24-volt operation” and “[i]f the batteries 23 are 12-volt batteries and a battery 25 is a 6-volt battery, 18- or 30-volt configurations may be provided.” Id. Neither Richardson’s claims nor its specification require any particular charging capacity or charging time. See generally Ex. 1005. While a single, near-final paragraph of Richardson introduces the concept of rapid charging of the jump starter batteries to charge a fleet of vehicles, Richardson characterization is permissive or optional. For example, Richardson states The charging system of the vehicle may be used to charge the capacitors 21 and jump starter batteries 22. . . . This allows the capacitors 21 and jump starter batteries 22 to be fully recharged in about 1 to 5 minutes and can therefore start many vehicles in a row without becoming discharged. Id. ¶ 55 (emphasis added). We do not view this singular occurrence as supplanting the breadth of Richardson’s complete disclosure. Furthermore, the crux of Patent Owner’s argument is that because of Richardson’s goal of charging high capacity batteries a USB charger would require significant charging time. PO Resp. 29; Sur-reply 2–14 But, nowhere does Patent Owner allege that a USB charger would not work given sufficient time.11 See generally PO Resp. and Sur-reply. And, when faced with no alternative, the person of ordinary skill in the art must balance the trade-offs and consider charging slowly, or not at all. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”); see also Winner 11 Petitioner in its Reply presents some evidence of charging times using a USB input charger. Pet. Reply 4–7; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 6–12, Appendix A. Patent Owner disputes the accuracy of Petitioner’s calculations. Sur-reply 2–11. But, whether Petitioner’s calculations are accurate or not, Petitioner’s proposed alternative modification does not remove the faster charging path and instead adds the convenience and flexibility of a secondary charging method where the primary and faster charging path is unavailable. Ex. 1044 ¶ 12.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 11,447,023 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,447,023 - Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC v. Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00736 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Garfinkle and Kosten; claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious over Garfinkle, Kosten, and Allen.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedPetitioner expert discountedGranted
“Our reviewing court has held that if a declarant fails to qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art, then that person’s testimony regarding the knowledge or motivations of one of ordinary skill in the art is irrelevant as a matter of law. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.”). Mr. Daniels’ declaration consists of an analysis of the cited prior art in comparison to the challenged claims and a discussion of whether there would have been a 2 The motion does not seek to exclude the declaration of the named inventor of the ’725 patent, Nick Stiliadis. See Ex. 2109 (Stiliadis Declaration). motivation to combine the prior art. Ex. 2121 ¶¶ 4–20. Mr. Tulchin’s declaration addresses claim construction issues. Ex. 2131 ¶¶ 5–35. Each declarant, therefore, addresses issues that must be considered from the vantage point of a POSITA at the time of the invention, meaning a person with the level of ordinary skill defined in Section II.E.1 above. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (claim construction); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (obviousness). If Mr. Daniels and Mr. Tulchin do not qualify as POSITAs, as Petitioner alleges, then their opinion testimony is inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 (Testimony by Expert Witnesses). We find that there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that Mr. Daniels qualifies as a POSITA in relation to the ’725 patent. Mr. Daniels has an undergraduate degree in engineering physics in addition to a law degree. Ex. 2121 ¶ 2. His declaration, however, does not establish that he also has “one year of experience related to marketing and distribution of multimedia material over a computer network, or the equivalent.” See Section II.E.1 above. Mr. Daniels characterizes his non-legal work experience as follows: The rest of my professional career has been spent working in my own companies in the research, development and prototyping/commercialization of a number of different technologies, principally including fishing rod technology, digital video file transport, storage and processing, LED-based light-emitting tapes, drone control systems, wearable medical related electronic devices and breath-based diagnostic devices. Ex. 2121 ¶ 3; see also Ex. 1023, 99 (Daniels Deposition) (describing work on “a suite of interactive television innovations,” including “the first working pause button”). None of the projects identified appears to relate to “marketing and distribution of multimedia material over a computer network.” Patent Owner argues that Mr. Daniels “was involved (at the time of the filing of the application which matured into the ’725 patent) in making inventions, that dealt with interactive television, video pause buttons and video file provision over the Internet.” Sur-Reply Br. 6. However, neither Mr. Daniels’ declaration nor his deposition testimony assert that he ever worked on “video file provision over the Internet,” let alone that he did so for one year or more. See Ex. 2121 ¶ 3; Ex. 1023, 98–100. We find that the evidence in the record is not sufficient for us to conclude that Mr. Daniels qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art. We further find a lack of evidence establishing that Mr. Tulchin qualifies” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the following definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art: “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field plus one year of experience related to marketing and distribution of multimedia material over a computer network, or the equivalent.” Dec. 9. Patent Owner’s proposed definition differs from the Board’s only in that it adds a Bachelor of Science in engineering physics to the list of degrees that one of ordinary skill in the art might possess. See id. We view engineering physics as being related to the fields of electrical engineering, computer engineering, and computer science. Accordingly, following a review of the full record, we view Patent Owner’s proposed definition in its Response as consistent with the ’725 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaning
“When interpreting the meaning of a claim, “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Patent Owner has, briefly, proposed six claim terms for construction: exhibition; exhibitor; broadcast exhibitor; distribution; marketing; and storing. PO Resp. 10. The Petition states that “[t]o resolve the grounds presented herein, Petitioner does not believe that any term requires explicit construction.” Pet. 12. We see no reason why “exhibition” and “exhibitor” should be understood as having a meaning as narrow as Patent Owner proposes. “Exhibition” and “exhibitor” encompass more than just a showing by “one in the exhibition business” because the specification of the ’725 patent identifies certain “exhibitors” that are not “in the exhibition business”: e.g., a high school, libraries, and other non-profit organizations. Ex. 1001, 12:38–41 (“schools, libraries, and other non-profit organizations”), Fig. 1 (“high school”). The plain and ordinary meaning of “exhibitors” is at least broad enough to encompass the types of exhibitors identified in the specification: movie theaters, television stations, satellite television operators, cable television operators, and non-profit organizations such as high schools. Ex. 1001, 4:20–22, Fig. 1. We further determine that some of these exhibitor types, including at least satellite and cable television operators, are “broadcast exhibitors.” Moreover, we find that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “distribution” is not so narrow as to be limited to “the business of marketing films and providing copies to venues,” as Patent Owner proposes. See PO Resp. 10 (emphasis added). The claimed invention is a “method of marketing and distributing multimedia,” which is not limited to films. We agree with Petitioner that the term is at least broad enough to encompass distribution of any type of multimedia to any type of exhibitor contemplated in the specification. See Ex. 1001, 1:20–25 (multimedia types); Reply Br. 6. Similarly, the plain and ordinary meanings of “marketing” and “storing” are not limited to Patent Owner’s specific examples: interesting individuals in seeing a film and saving to non-volatile storage, respectively. See PO Resp. 10; Tr. at 57:3–7. The invention is directed to marketing and distributing multimedia, not just films, Ex. 1001, 16:21, and while the Specification refers to storing multimedia on “hard drives,” id. at 4:35–37, 4:44–52, there is nothing in the Specification, claims, or prosecution history that would limit storage only to hard drives or other non-volatile storage. The intrinsic evidence suggests that the proper construction of each” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Garfinkle’s video distribution system to implement Kosten’s distribution method to achieve the improvements described therein, such as: access to a large number of video products and advertising materials available at a centralized location (Ex-1007, 54; Ex-1005, 1:42–49, 1:54–2:12), improved advertising capabilities (Ex-1007, 54; Ex-1005, 1:42–49, 1:54–2:12), and improved distribution processes resulting in lower shipping and handling costs and labor intensity, improved security against piracy, wider and more flexible distribution capabilities, cost reductions for movie theaters, increased control over time and locations of exhibitions by studios and distributors, an ability to scale up or down distribution based on success in theaters, and an ability to track and monitor sales and marketing data (Ex-1007, 52, 54). Pet. 14 (citing Dystar Textilfarben v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (A motivation to combine exists when the “improvement” results in a product or process that is “stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.”)). Petitioner further asserts that such a person would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the objective of efficient content distribution through the proposed combination of Garfinkle and Kosten with no change in their respective functions because: (1) both are “from the same field and address the same well-known issues”; and (2) both references purport to achieve this objective in similar and predictable ways, “such as using the well-known teachings of digitizing content, correlating multimedia and associated advertising materials, and connecting multiple user sites to the central station through a public communications system.” Id. at 13, 16–17 (internal citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1005, 2:58–3:5, 3:32–49, 4:37–39; Ex. 1007, 54); Ex. 1002 ¶ 68. Patent Owner contends that there would have been no motivation to combine Kosten and Garfinkle because each represents a “complete solution[] to different file transport modes, Kosten involving simple file transmission to a theater and billboards, and Garfinkle involving file transmission to a [video-on-demand] user. Neither has a problem which is addressed by the other.” PO Resp. 33. Petitioner argues, however, and we agree, that “(1) a known technique can provide motivation to combine and (2) a known technique does not need to improve upon the primary reference—it just must be a ‘suitable option.’” Reply Br. 21 (citing Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). Thus, it does not matter that Kosten and Garfinkle each represent a complete and functional solution to digitally transporting media files. If the references in the combination address a known problem, such as issues with multimedia distribution, see Pet. 13–14, and the proposed combination is a suitable solution, then there would have been a motivation to combine the two references. Moreover, Petitioner persuasively argues that by combining Kosten and Garfinkle, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to achieve benefits such as lower shipping and handling costs, improved security against piracy, wider and more flexible distribution capabilities, an ability to more easily scale distribution up or down as needed, among other benefits. Pet. 14. We find that these benefits would have provided a sufficient motivation to combine Garfinkle’s technical implementation of a distribution process for large multimedia files with Kosten’s proposed business application, “beaming” films directly to theaters via satellite. Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are without merit.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,574,725 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,574,725 - PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00631 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–13, and 15–22 on all five asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’027 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–13, and 15–22) of the ’027 patent, based on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “possessed an undergraduate degree in chemistry, polymers, materials science, chemical engineering (or related field) and one to two years of experience with constructing and manufacturing tires, tire patches, tire decals/stickers and/or the like.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6–11). According to Petitioner, “Additional education could compensate for less practical experience. Conversely, additional practical experience could compensate for less education.” Id. Patent Owner does not provide an alternate definition, but, “Patent Owner does not acquiesce to, and reserves the right to address, [Petitioner’s] definition of a POSA.” Prelim. Resp. 6 n.6. Petitioner’s proposed definition appears to be consistent with the disclosure of the ’027 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s contentions that these disclosures indicate that Wilson’s patch would not meet the construction of “barrier material composition.” None of these disclosures even suggests that the base of Wilson’s patch is rigid as Patent Owner suggests. To begin with, the fact that the housing is “more rigid” provides no information about the absolute rigidness of the patch. See Ex. 1009, 9:16–21. As for the disclosure that the patch is contoured (id. at 3:35–67), Patent Owner provides only attorney argument to support its contention that the contour demonstrates that Wilson’s patch must be so rigid that it cannot be meet the claim limitation. In contrast, Petitioner demonstrates that Wilson discloses using the exact same materials described in the challenged patent (see Ex. 1001, 6:33–58 (noting “[e]lastomeric materials useful for forming the intermediate layer 24 include but are not limited to gum rubber, vulcanized natural rubber SBR . . . or comparable materials”); Ex. 1009, 3:49–55 (noting the patch may be constructed from natural rubber (NR), a preferred mixture of chlorobutyl rubber and natural rubber (CR/NR), or a preferred mixture of SBR and natural rubber (SBR/NR)), and provides detailed testimony from its expert to support its contentions (see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–119). On the current record, we find Petitioner’s reasoning and evidence to be persuasive, and find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Willson discloses or teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,124,027 - Reolink Innovation Inc. / Shenzhen Reolink Technology Co., Ltd. v. Throughtek Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00509 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Throughtek-2012 and the Lorex Video; claims 1–3, 6, 10, 12–14, 17, and 18 are also unpatentable under two other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Bims, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’842 patent would have been a person having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of work experience with network and communication technologies. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 15–16). Patent Owner does not provide any proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art. In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’842 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts “no claim elements need a formal construction for purposes of resolving the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 55; Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 701 Fed. Appx. 946, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Petitioner states “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.” Id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1303; 37 C.F.R. §42.100). Patent Owner presents no proposed claim constructions. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS RE47,842 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham - Microsoft Corporation / Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01398 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under § 103 over Giobbi ’157, Giobbi ’139, and Dua.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“Here, as Petitioner points out, “the Challenged Claims . . . do not recite ‘means for’ or ‘step for.’” Pet. Reply 1. As the Federal Circuit stated, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112(f). See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Based on the record before us, this presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112(f) is not overcome. Although Patent Owner argues that “to claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function, amounts to pure functional claiming” (PO Sur-reply 5), the question here is whether “means for” analysis under § 112(f) applies at all. That is, as Patent Owner acknowledges, we must determine first whether the claim is even claiming a “means for” performing a function, “and then” determine whether the structure designed to perform that function is a general purpose computer. Id. As set forth in MPEP § 2181, the three-step analysis in determining whether § 112(f) applies begins with determining whether a claim limitation uses 1) the term “means” or “step” or 2) a nonce term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder. See MPEP § 2181(I). We agree with Petitioner’s contentions during oral argument that Patent Owner’s arguments appear to be “based on adding a third general purpose computer structure category that triggers MPF treatment not supported by any case law.” Tr. 32:10–12. Accordingly, although Patent Owner argues that “claim 1 invokes § 112[(f)]” (PO Resp. 8, 18), and then provides extensive arguments with supporting testimony from Dr. Jakobsson as to the algorithm defining “local, secured information” (id. at 10–20 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 18, 38–51, 53–55)) and “algorithm of control logic 250” (id. at 21–25 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 37, 58)), the presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112(f) is not overcome; thus, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to proceed to determining the corresponding algorithm.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Giobbi ’157 and Giobbi ’139 (Pet. 13–22), and furthermore combine the teachings of Dua to the teachings of Giobbi ’157 and Giobbi ’139 (id. at 23–25), citing Dr. Traynor’s testimony for support. In particular, Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have been motivated to integrate a PDK and RDC into a hybrid device by recognizing that Giobbi-157 and Giobbi-139 are “directed to similar operations,” “describe similar structures for performing those operations,” and have techniques that “are compatible with each other,” wherein combining the techniques “would have worked in the same manner already described in the references.” Id. at 21–22. Petitioner then contends that “Dua further corroborates the teachings of the Giobbi references and provides implementation details for integrating an RDC and PDK into the same device,” wherein “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the Giobbi references and Dua” because, at least “these references are all in the same field of endeavor.” Id. at 23–24. Patent Owner does not address separately Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence regarding Petitioner’s proffered reasoning to combine the references. See generally PO Resp. We have reviewed Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence regarding these limitations, as well as Petitioner’s proffered reasoning to combine the references, and we agree with and adopt them as our own. Pet. 13–25. Because Patent Owner does not separately address these limitations or Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for combining the references, the Petitioner’s positions regarding these limitations of independent claim 1 and the combination of references stand unopposed as a part of this trial. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Giobbi ’157, Giobbi ’139, and Dua as proffered in the Petition.” slip op. at 46
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Owner’s arguments that claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), with which, as discussed above, we do not agree. In particular, although Patent Owner argues that Giobbi ’157 does not teach or describe unlocking information from a service block in exchange for an access key “as required in the challenged claims” (PO Resp. 30), and thus fails to disclose the “enabling” function as required by the claim, claim 1 merely requires that one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enables one or more of an application, a function, and a service. In Giobbi ’157, when the PDK enters a proximity zone of the RDC, the RDC requests profile data stored within the PDK for authentication, and if the profile data received from the PDK is valid, the RDC “completes the transaction.” See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 59–63. We find availing Petitioner’s reliance of Giobbi ’157’s completion of a transaction by the PDK and the RDC to gain access as teaching “enabling access to secure physical or digital assets,” i.e., “enabling one or more of an application, a function, and service” by at least one of a PDK and RDC. See Pet. 37. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that the proposed combination of Giobbi ’157, Giobbi ’139, and Dua teaches “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service on one or more of the hybrid device and a device associated with the external RDC,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 8,646,042 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,646,042 - Microsoft Corporation / Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00573 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Giobbi ’157, Giobbi ’139, and Dua; the Board did not reach the other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“Here, as Petitioner points out, “the Challenged Claims . . . do not recite ‘means for’ or ‘step for.’” Pet. Reply 1. As the Federal Circuit stated, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112(f). See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Based on the record before us, this presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112(f) is not overcome. Although Patent Owner argues that “to claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function, amounts to pure functional claiming” (PO Sur-reply 5), the question here is whether “means for” analysis under § 112(f) applies at all. That is, as Patent Owner acknowledges, we must determine first whether the claim is even claiming a “means for” performing a function, “and then” determine whether the structure designed to perform that function is a general purpose computer. Id. As set forth in MPEP § 2181, the three-step analysis in determining whether § 112(f) applies begins with determining whether a claim limitation uses 1) the term “means” or “step” or 2) a nonce term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder. See MPEP § 2181(I). We agree with Petitioner’s contentions during oral argument that Patent Owner’s arguments appear to be “based on adding a third general purpose computer structure category that triggers MPF treatment not supported by any case law.” Tr. 32:10–12. Accordingly, although Patent Owner argues that “claim 1 invokes § 112[(f)]” (PO Resp. 8, 18), and then provides extensive arguments with supporting testimony from Dr. Jakobsson as to the algorithm defining “local, secured information” (id. at 10–20 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 18, 38–51, 53–55)) and “algorithm of control logic 250” (id. at 21–25 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 37, 58)), the presumption that each of the terms is not subject to § 112(f) is not overcome; thus, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to proceed to determining the corresponding algorithm.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“vi. Combining Giobbi ’157, Giobbi ’139, and Dua Petitioner further provides detailed explanations as to why a POSITA would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Giobbi ’157 and Giobbi ’139 (Pet. 13–22), and furthermore combine the teachings of Dua to the teachings of Giobbi ’157 and Giobbi ’139 (id. at 23–25), citing Dr. Traynor’s testimony for support. In particular, Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have been motivated to integrate a PDK and RDC into a hybrid device by recognizing that Giobbi-157 and Giobbi-139 are “directed to similar operations,” “describe similar structures for performing those operations,” and have techniques that “are compatible with each other,” wherein combining the techniques “would have worked in the same manner already described in the references.” Id. at 21–22. Petitioner then contends that “Dua further corroborates the teachings of the Giobbi references and provides implementation details for integrating an RDC and PDK into the same device,” wherein “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the Giobbi references and Dua” because, at least “these references are all in the same field of endeavor.” Id. at 23–24.” slip op. at 46
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Owner’s arguments that claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), with which, as discussed above, we do not agree. In particular, although Patent Owner argues that Giobbi ’157 does not teach or describe unlocking information from a service block in exchange for an access key “as required in the challenged claims” (PO Resp. 30), and thus fails to disclose the “enabling” function as required by the claim, claim 1 merely requires that one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enables one or more of an application, a function, and a service. In Giobbi ’157, when the PDK enters a proximity zone of the RDC, the RDC requests profile data stored within the PDK for authentication, and if the profile data received from the PDK is valid, the RDC “completes the transaction.” See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 59–63. We find availing Petitioner’s reliance of Giobbi ’157’s completion of a transaction by the PDK and the RDC to gain access as teaching “enabling access to secure physical or digital assets,” i.e., “enabling one or more of an application, a function, and service” by at least one of a PDK and RDC. See Pet. 37. Based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that the proposed combination of Giobbi ’157, Giobbi ’139, and Dua teaches “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service on one or more of the hybrid device and a device associated with the external RDC,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 8,646,042 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,646,042 - Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co. Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V.InstitutedPTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00491 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 9, and 15 are unpatentable over Ground 1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties at this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioners would prevail in showing that Beel discloses or suggests to a skilled artisan a base unit having a transmitter and a first peripheral device having a receiver and at least one fixed or a configurable endpoint, where the at least one fixed or a configurable endpoint is a data source or a data sink which is able to store or emit data, of the functional device exposed or made available on the first peripheral device.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioners contend that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had “Master of Science (M.S.) degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and five years of work experience in a related field. Additional educational experience could substitute for some of the work experience.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37). Patent Owner does not dispute this position at this time. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioners’ proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, as it is consistent with the ’972 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that “fixed” or “configurable” requires more than what is agreed to by the parties––i.e., the characteristics and operational parameters of the endpoint are either set prior to operation or can be set during operation. We disagree that the ’972 patent defines “fixed or a configurable endpoint” as “a number of descriptive fields of the endpoint.” Rather column 8, lines 5–6, of the ’972 patent states that “[a]n endpoint is defined by a number of descriptive fields,” which speaks more about the mechanism used to establish the characteristics and operational parameters of the endpoint than it does about how “fixed” or “configurable” would be understood by a skilled artisan. And the fact that an endpoint may be defined by descriptive fields does not inform a skilled artisan that “fixed” or “configurable” requires the endpoint to allow the processing device to correctly interpret and utilize the data from the endpoint. Correctly interpreting and utilizing data may be the goal, but that goal is not turned into a requirement of the claims because the recited endpoint is fixed or configurable. Similarly, there is no basis for making that goal a requirement simply because a fixed endpoint is described as providing basic functionality and a configurable endpoint is described as being configurable by the base unit either while pairing or via the processing device. As a result, we find little merit in Patent Owner’s contention that the language “fixed or a configurable” requires a process for setting up the characteristics and operational parameters of an endpoint within a device so that the processing device can correctly interpret and utilize the data of this endpoint. Patent Owner, however, will have an opportunity during trial to further develop this contention.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableInstituted
“Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties at this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioners would prevail in showing that Beel discloses or suggests to a skilled artisan a base unit having a transmitter and a first peripheral device having a receiver and at least one fixed or a configurable endpoint, where the at least one fixed or a configurable endpoint is a data source or a data sink which is able to store or emit data, of the functional device exposed or made available on the first peripheral device. Petitioners’ offers evidence, supported by its expert declarant, that the endpoints disclosed in Beel are either fixed, such as a mass storage unit with predefined characteristics, or configurable, such as a virtual audio interface that may change configuration based on driver instructions or use context. Pet. 32–33. As Petitioners point out, the ’972 patent itself acknowledges that Beel’s Figure 11 illustrates a system comprising a combination of vendor-specific and standard endpoints, and further interprets these endpoints to correspond to drivers and host applications used for functionality like screen sharing and audio streaming, which demonstrates a direct conceptual and structural alignment between the ’972 patent and Beel. Id. Furthermore, Petitioner’s evidence demonstrates sufficiently that Beel describes a peripheral device acting as a virtual composite device capable of emulating different functions—such as a USB audio speaker—while rerouting the data stream (e.g., RTP audio stream) over the network. Id. For instance, Petitioners’ evidence demonstrates sufficiently Beel discloses or suggests that audio data can be captured by a virtual sound card interface implemented within the peripheral device, re-encoded, and transmitted to the base unit for playback or synchronization with video content. Id. In addition, Petitioners have demonstrated sufficiently that Beel’s architecture supports the requirement that the endpoint of the functional device—whether it is a camera, microphone, or speaker—is made available through or exposed on the peripheral device. Id. The functional device’s capabilities are effectively rendered accessible to the processing device by way of the peripheral device, which acts as an intermediary. Id. Petitioners’ evidence demonstrates sufficiently that this exposure can occur via logical interfaces, such as USB Audio Class (UAC) virtual drivers, that allow the processing device to recognize and interact with these endpoints using standard protocols. Id. Furthermore, Petitioners show sufficiently Beel discloses that the peripheral device may include software that facilitates communication with and presentation of media content on the processing device, further demonstrating that the endpoints are not only present but also actively used for data transmission. Id. Patent Owner’s arguments, at least at this stage of the proceeding, fail to undermine Petitioners’ showing because they are largely just that–– attorney arguments––without sufficient evidentiary backing and because they lack sufficient clarity regarding how the recited claim language distinguishes Beel’s disclosed system. First, Patent Owner makes several representations that Petitioners misplace its reliance on certain teachings or suggests found in Beel and that Beel does not support the contention Petitioners make, but Petitioners’ positions are backed the testimony of Dr. Almeroth and Patent Owner offers no contradictory evidence for why a skilled artisan would understand Beel differently. And, suffice it to say that, when the declaration of Dr. Almeroth is considered in juxtaposition with the cited evidence from Beel, we have found declarant Dr. Almeroth sufficiently persuasive to demonstrate Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail on the point. For example, Patent Owner simply argues that “there is no indication in Beel of using any fixed or a configurable endpoint of the functional device exposed or made available on the first peripheral device” (Prelim. Resp. 31), but declarant Dr. Almeroth states that “Beel discloses that a peripheral device can act as a ‘virtual audio device’ using a USB Audio Class (UAC) interface,” which “indicates that endpoints of the functional device are ‘exposed or made available on the first peripheral device’” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 130 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶¶ 128–129). Patent Owner’s argument, without any evidentiary support, does little to undermine the opinion testimony from Dr. Almeroth about what Beel’s teachings would indicate to a skilled artisan. Second, although Patent Owner repeatedly states that Beel fails to” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,684,972 - Visa Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00490 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–8, and 10–16 are unpatentable over Oborne or Oborne and Purves; claims 2, 9, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would typically have a bachelor’s degree in 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 ¶¶ 74–79). Petitioner further states that a person of ordinary skill “could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of those fields.” Id. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 15. Patent Owner states that it agrees with the level of ordinary skill set forth in our Institution Decision. PO Resp. 9. Based on the full trial record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’973 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“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 Inst. Dec. 11.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Shamos’s testimony in light of Oborne’s disclosure, but find Patent Owner’s arguments and 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, contrary to Petitioner’s position, “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 the second device . . . a new credential,” or point to disclosures in Oborne that would support such a motivation. See Pet. 34–35; Ex. 1005 ¶ 228. 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. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 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 “device fingerprinting” is limited, and does not describe how it would be implemented for a user with two devices. See PO Resp. 41–42. Therefore, Dr. Shamos’s cited Declaration testimony is “conclusory, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight.” Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB August 24, 2022) (precedential); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We recognize the application of “an expansive and flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. However, we “must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphases added) (internal quotations omitted). Although Stafford discloses that the key signatures may be copied from the display or delivered to the user via email, Petitioner does not expand upon whether the user would also copy the image from the display, whether the image would be provided via email as well, or provide any other explanation other than that the image credential would be provided with the scannable key signatures. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 97, 99; Pet. 60. Although a credential image would presumably need to be retrieved or generated in some manner, and associated with the key signatures in some manner, Petitioner also does not sufficiently explain how this would work in the proposed combination, or how the user would transmit the scannable key signature to the recipient. Although proof of physical or bodily incorporation is not required, a satisfactory explanation of “how the combination of the . . . references [is] supposed to work” is necessary to support “a conclusion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the combination and reasonably expect success in doing so.” Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding no error where the Board required petitioner to explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented petitioner’s proposed substitution). Petitioner fails to provide “a clear, evidence-supported account of the contemplated workings” of the proposed combination of Stafford and Purves. See Personal Web, 848 F.3d at 994.” slip op. at 62
Patent outcomesUS 11,329,973 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,329,973 - Visa Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00489 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–9, 11–18, and 20 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 2, 10, 19, and 21 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would typically have a bachelor’s degree in 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 ¶¶ 76–81). Petitioner further states that a person of ordinary skill “could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of those fields.” Id. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner states that it agrees with the level of ordinary skill set forth in our Institution Decision. PO Resp. 9. Based on the full trial record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’859 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“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. 11. We also explained that we did not need to determine for purposes of institution whether the term “OVER file” necessarily includes “tokens” as a general matter, or further elaborate on what additional characteristics might be required to qualify as an “OVER file.” 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 11, 24–27.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“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 the credential.” Inst. Dec. 13. 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 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“3. Other Terms The parties do not propose constructions for any other claim terms, and we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms for purposes of this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 10,749,859 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,749,859
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.