- Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01231 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable under §103; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations do not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,356,251 - Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01262 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“attempts to extrapolate Mahajan’s specific teachings and specific architecture into a general principle such that specific commands are converted to universal commands and then universal commands are converted to specific commands regardless of the location of the process within a distributed system. See Tr. 14:5–11. Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s extrapolation arguments are unsupported by Mahajan. We understand Petitioner argues that Mahajan’s “distributed computing environments” would have rendered it obvious to alter the location where command conversions occur. Pet. 41; Reply 10–11, 14. Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther
“Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,356,251 - Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00322 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations do not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed
“Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 25
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,356,251 - Oracle Corporation v. Joseph L. De BellisAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00221 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–7, 15–23, and 25–30 unpatentable as obvious over the five asserted combinations; Zellweger was prior art under § 102(e).
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner’s assertions that Patent Owner has not shown conception of the noted claim language prior to Zellweger’s filing date. For example, claim 1’s limitation 1A requires “determining a database schema.” We find no mention of this in Patent Owner’s conception evidence.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not identify any evidence in the ’720 patent, its file history, or elsewhere, to support its restrictive construction of the claim language, nor do we find any lexicographical definition or disavowal of claim scope to support it. Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Absent lexicography or disavowal, we do not depart from the plain meaning of the claims”). Hence, the ordinary and customary meaning of “providing a list of database fields” in limitation 1B is not limited to the time a search query was 3 A patent related to the ’720 patent, US Patent No. 9,507,835 B2, filed December 17, 2015, uses the term “search-on-the-fly” in its claims. In contrast, the ’720 patent’s claims are directed toward the truncation feature described in the patent. This suggests that Patent Owner chose not to limit the ’720 patent’s claims to the context of “search-on-the-fly” notwithstanding the ’720 patent’s title. Ex. 1001, code (54). submitted.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends as follows: A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (“POSITA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related subject, and at least two years of experience working with databases, computer networks, and related web technologies. A more advanced degree can substitute for less work experience and vice versa. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57–61). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the problems, solutions, technology, and educational level set forth in the ’720 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. See generally PO Resp.; Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level in this Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Specifically, Petitioner contends that Cochran seeks to provide an efficient and user-friendly method to search computer databases, and recognizes that pick lists for searches may be voluminous and exceed the capacity of a pick box to display them simultaneously such that Cochran would benefit from improved navigation methods. Pet. 55–56 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:4–19, 10:58–65; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 482–485). Petitioner asserts that Zellweger sought to remedy the same problem of navigating long pick box lists, and argues that a POSITA would have looked to Zellweger’s Alphabet or Content Lists to replace Cochran’s scroll bars. Id. at 56–57 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 485). Petitioner contends that the combination is “nothing more than using one known method (Zellweger) to improve another known method (Cochran) according to the express teachings of Zellweger to yield predictable results.” Id. at 57. Petitioner contends that Cochran and Zellweger are analogous because they are directed to the same field of accessing information in databases through graphical interfaces that make information more accessible, and are both implemented as computer software. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, code (57), 1:14–20, 4:2–57; Ex. 1007, code (57), 1:35–40, 2:30–43; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 480–481). Petitioner alleges that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because, among other reasons, altering Cochran to truncate entries using Zellweger’s Alphabet and Content List menus would require nothing more than routine programming. Id. at 57–58.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 6,760,720 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,760,720 - PTAB · May 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00021 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“court proceeding to the Northern District of California (Ex[.] 1036[,] 8).” Pet. 73. However, on March 25, 2025, the District Court denied the motion to transfer. Ex. 2026. Thus, we find that factor 2 weighs in favor of exercising discretion.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. 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). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner on this record. The language of claim 1 recites “location access rights of said device from said first wireless device.” The claim language does not limit the location access rights to be of only the one other device, at the exclusion of other devices. The ordinary and customary meaning of “location access rights of said device from said first wireless device” encompasses rights that allow other devices, in addition to the recited device, to access location information. The disclosure in the written description is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning. Although the written description states that an object of the invention is to provide a security feature which allows a user to limit or deny access to a particular user, the written description discusses other purposes served by the assignment of access rights. For example, the written description discloses that “[u]sers may be added, individually or in groups, to a list of users with location access rights to a specific user by that specific user. A specific user may, at any time, modify, delete, or add users allowed to access his or her location.” Ex. 1001, 3:22- 26. The written description further discloses that “a user may organize his/her user list into groups and assign access rights to that group (e.g., family member user group, close friend user group).” Id. at 13:9–12. The fact that the written description of the ’039 patent sets forth multiple objectives to be served by the access rights confirms that these terms should not be construed as limited to a single device. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. Further, because the written description here includes an embodiment where a user assigns access rights to a group, we are persuaded that the scope of the disputed claim terms encompasses a group permission. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.”). At this stage, we interpret the scope of the “location access rights of said device from said first wireless device” to encompass at least the disclosed embodiment of assigning access rights to a group. Ex. 1001, 13:9– 12.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made Petitioner’s proposed combination of “Degnbol’s disclosure of both selection of location-based events and manual entry using the handset of the phone with Sheha, to improve user ease, given that such techniques were well-known and conventional to POSAs at the time of alleged invention.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 132). Degnbol describes that “[i]t is an advantage of the present invention that user ‘A’ can be alerted when user ‘B’ arrives or leaves the defined location(s) or area(s)” so as “to enable user ‘A’ to know in advance the proximity or approximate whereabouts of user ‘B’ before possibly acting upon this information by contacting user ‘B’ — or allowing ‘B’ to contact ‘A.’” Ex. 1035, 3:23–27. At this preliminary stage, we find that Petitioner provides sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Sheha, Degnbol, and McNulty for purposes of institution. Based on the evidence and arguments currently of record, we find that Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that the Sheha, Degnbol, and McNulty combination teaches the features recited in claim elements [1D] through [1F] and Petitioner provides sufficient rationale to make its proposed combination. We find that Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing. c) Conclusion—Claim 1 After consideration of the arguments and the evidence of record at this early stage, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently, for purposes of institution, that the combination of Sheha, Degnbol, and McNulty teaches or suggests all recitations in claim 1. Also, we find that Petitioner provides sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Sheha, Degnbol, and McNulty for purposes of institution. We find that Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing. Based on the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Sheha, Degnbol, and McNulty.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,096,039 - PTAB · May 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00018 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“court proceeding to the Northern District of California (Ex[.] 1036[,] 8).” Pet. 75–76. However, on March 25, 2025, the District Court denied the motion to transfer. Ex. 2026. Thus, we find that factor 2 weighs in favor of exercising discretion.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“purposes of institution, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that independent claim 1 is unpatentable over Sheha.” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“permission is operable of being provided by said first wireless device for said second wireless device to access location information about said location.” The claim does not recite that the permission is limited to permission for only the second wireless device. The ordinary and customary meaning of “a permission . . . for said second wireless device to access location information” encompasses a permission that allows other devices, in addition to the “second wireless device,” to access location information.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“On this record, in considering the background knowledge as well as the inferences that an ordinarily skilled artisan would draw from Sheha’s disclosure, we are sufficiently persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have caused the mobile telephone to display the map of Figure 5. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (In an obviousness analysis, a court will “look to . . . the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art” and “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). The references cited by Mr. Williams explicitly show what is already implicitly taught by Sheha, namely, that displaying the map of Figure 5 on a mobile telephone was within the background knowledge of a person of ordinary skill. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 138–144; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 2, 21, p. 85; Ex. 1016 ¶ 27; Ex. 1014, 3:28–31, 4:43–58; Fig. 4B; Ex. 1017, 4:38–57, 5:13–17, 6:14–27, 6:59–7:6, Fig. 2; Ex. 1018, 2:2–7, 3:59–67, 5:48–57, Fig. 4B. We agree with Mr. Williams, that a person of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the teachings of Sheha and his or her background knowledge, would have caused a mobile telephone to receive location information without initiating a telephone call and would have used the location information to display a map on the mobile telephone in a form similar to that shown in Figure 5 as taught by Sheha and as was well known in the art. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 133–144.” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,122,418 - PTAB · May 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00124 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–46 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling of the same within fourteen (14) days following the PTAB’s institution decision on the last of the pending IPRs” (Ex. 2008, 3), we decline to speculate whether the district court will grant a stay. Thus, we find that factor 1 is neutral. slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Upon consideration of the arguments and the evidence of record at this preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’575 patent. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’575 patent and with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar degree, with one or two years of experience with wireless networks and devices, such as cellphones and personal digital assistants (‘PDAs’), as well as wireless positioning technologies, such as GPS or triangulation,” and that “[m]ore education could compensate for less practical experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–54). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not challenge the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner’s expert. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’575 patent specification and the prior art.5” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner on this record. The language of claim 1, quoted above, recites “changing, at the direction of said first wireless telephone, a list of users on said remote server for a profile associated with said first wireless telephone that are allowed to access said location, wherein each user of said list of users is representative of one of a plurality of wireless telephones.” Ex. 1001, 12:65–13:3. The recitation of “said location” derives antecedent basis from element [1A], which recites “obtaining a location of a first wireless telephone,” thus “said location” in element [1C] is the location of the first wireless telephone. Id. at 12:62.7 The claim language does not limit access to the location of the first telephone to one other device, at the exclusion of other devices. Indeed, the claim language specifically recites that “a list of users” are changed “for a profile associated with said first wireless telephone” and that “each user of said list of users is representative of one of a plurality of wireless telephones.” Ex. 1001, 12:65– 13:3 (emphases added). The ordinary and customary meaning of “changing, at the direction of said first wireless telephone, a list of users on said remote server for a profile associated with said first wireless telephone that are allowed to access” to the location of the first wireless device “wherein each user of said list of users is representative of one of a plurality of wireless telephones” (Ex. 1001, 12:65–13:3) encompasses allowing “a list of users,” each having a telephone, access to the location of the “first wireless telephone” and further encompasses allowing other telephones, in addition to the recited plurality of wireless telephones access to the location of the first wireless telephone.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,374,575 - PTAB · May 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00019 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling of the same within fourteen (14) days following the PTAB’s institution decision on the last of the pending IPRs” (Ex. 2008, 3), we decline to speculate whether the District Court will grant a stay. Thus, we find that factor 1 is neutral. slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the evidence and arguments currently of record, for purposes of institution, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that independent claim 1 is unpatentable over Sheha, Smith, and Carey.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar degree, with one or two years of experience with wireless networks and devices, such as cellphones and personal digital assistants (“PDAs”) as well as wireless positioning technologies, such as GPS or triangulation.” Pet. 4. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50-54). Petitioner further contends that “[m]ore education could compensate for less practical experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. 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). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner on this record. The language of claims 1, 8, and 15, quoted above, recite that the “wireless” telephonic “device is operable to assign location access right to” one other wireless telephonic devices (claims 1 and 8) and that the “first wireless device is operable to assign a second permission to said second wireless device” (claim 15). The claim language does not limit the location access rights to be assigned only to the one other device, at the exclusion of other devices. Nor does the language regarding assigning a “permission” limit that assignment to a single (and only to the) second wireless device. The ordinary and customary meaning of “assigning . . . to said one of said plurality of wireless devices, “assigning . . . to said first wireless telephonic device” or “assign a second permission to said second wireless device” encompasses a right or permission that allows other devices, in addition to the recited device, to access location information. The disclosure in the written description is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning. Although the written description states that an object of the invention is to provide a security feature which allows a user to limit or deny access to a particular user, the written description discusses other purposes served by the assignment of access rights or permissions. For example, the written description discloses that “[u]sers may be added, individually or in groups, to a list of users with location access rights to a specific user by that specific user. A specific user may, at any time, modify, delete, or add users allowed to access his or her location.” Ex. 1001, 3:22-26. The written description further discloses that “a user may organize his/her user list into groups and assign access rights to that group (e.g., family member user group, close friend user group).” Id. at 12:56−58. The fact that the written description of the ’283 patent sets forth multiple objectives to be served by the access rights or permission confirms that these terms should not be construed as limited to a single target device. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. Further, because the written description here includes an embodiment where a user assigns access rights to a group, we are persuaded that the scope of the disputed claim terms encompasses a group permission. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.”). At this stage, we interpret the scope of the “assign access rights” and” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,204,283 - PTAB · May 7, 2025 · IPR2021-00906 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board denied the motion to amend with proposed substitute claims 69, 70, 77, and 78 because the ’872 application did not provide written-description support.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“for the Federal Circuit. Papers 75–78. On February 3, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in which it stated: “We vacate and remand the Board’s decision with regard to claims 69 and 77, and their dependent claims, but otherwise affirm.” Paper 80.3 The formal mandate from the Federal Circuit was issued on March 12, 2025. Paper 79.” slip op. at 3
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Per the Federal Circuit’s instruction, the “first message” must come before the “another message” and “message preceding the another message.” However, the “first message” identified by Patent Owner, i.e., the RRC Connection Setup message, occurs after what Patent Owner identifies as the “another message,” i.e., the RRC Connection Request message. That mismatching sequence is evident from Figure 15 reproduced above.” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 7,580,388 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Fendgo, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00113 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9–15 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 9, 11 over Zellner and Kim; claim 15 over Walker; and claims 9–14 over Martin and Kim, with claim 14 also over Martin, Kim, and Dixit.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not address, let alone dispute, Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which is consistent the problems, solutions, technology, and educational level set forth in the ’404 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. See generally PO Resp.; Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level in this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“Reviewing the written description, we find no lexicographical definition or disavowal related to “owner identification information” in the ’404 patent. Instead, we find the term mentioned in relation to embodiments and examples. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, code (57), 4:17–25. Claim 8 of the ’404 patent recites that “owner identification information includes a name and a description of the owner of the mobile device” but, as Petitioner notes, the doctrine of claim differentiation suggests the term as used in claim 1 should be construed more broadly. Paper 28, 2; Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Lab'ys, Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]his court strives to reach a claim construction that does not render claim language in dependent claims meaningless.”)). Patent Owner is correct that “owner identification information” in claim 1 of the ’404 patent must be construed to encompass the name and description of the mobile device’s owner, as recited in claim 8. Paper 29, 2. However, we decline to restrict the term to exclude other indicia that may identify the device owner because that is not warranted by the written description, claims, and file history of the ’404 patent. Consequently, we construe “owner identification information” to mean “information that identifies the owner of the mobile device” under its ordinary and customary meaning as set forth in the ’404 patent and its file history. As recited in claim 8 of the ’404 patent, the term includes, but is not limited to, the name and description of the mobile device owner.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“have been aware of the need to implement techniques to reduce risk of false activation of panic button devices, and Zellner expressly recognizes this problem. Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1008, 13:40–42; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 242, 244). Petitioner asserts that Kim’s technique of requiring the user to press its device’s emergency key button a plurality of times was a known way to reduce false activations. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 245). Petitioner posits that a POSITA would have considered the combination of Zellner and Kim to amount to the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, as well as the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 246–247). These are recognized rationales supporting a motivation to combine. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Zellner’s device to require multiple button presses as taught by Kim in order to reduce false activations. Petitioner further contends that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Zellner’s panic button to require three presses for activation, and that examples of prior art showed how this could be done. Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 248–251). Since Kim expressly discloses implementation of this feature, we agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have expected success in combining Zellner and Kim. Ex. 1008, 13:40–42.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 11,265,404 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,265,404
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.