- 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 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00347 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds and granted joinder to IPR2024-00918, subject to participation limits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024); Paper 8 (referral to panel after no discretionary denial briefing under the Interim Processes memorandum). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be authorized unless the information in the Petition and any preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’564 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented. We also grant Petitioner’s Motion.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“As moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder should (1) set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review. See Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView, LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013). We determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that joinder is appropriate because, as set forth above, the Petition (1) is substantially identical to the fuboTV/MasterClass petition, (2) contains the same grounds based on the same evidence, and (3) relies on the same testimony from the same expert (Dr. Henry Houh, Ex. 1003). Mot. 1, 5–9. Petitioner also represents that joinder will not impact the fuboTV/MasterClass IPR schedule. See, e.g., Mot. 6–7 (“joinder will have minimal, if any, impact on the trial schedule, as all issues are substantively identical, and Petitioner will accept an ‘understudy’ role. . . . Lastly, the briefing and discovery will be simplified by resolving all issues in a single proceeding”), 9–10 (“[b]ecause the Instant Petition is substantively identical to the fuboTV/MasterClass [p]etition, with the same grounds applied to the same claims as instituted by the Board, there are no new issues for Patent Owner to address,” and “[j]oinder of this proceeding with the fuboTV/MasterClass IPR would not unduly burden or negatively impact the trial schedule in any meaningful way”).” slip op. at 10
NonePatents in suitUS 9,407,564 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00348 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–21 on all petition grounds and granted joinder to IPR2024-00919, subject to participation limits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“fuboTV/MasterClass IPR on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds of unpatentability. See fuboTV/MasterClass IPR, Paper 14 (institution decision). Petitioner here challenges the same claims and asserts the same” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“As moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder should (1) set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review. See Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView, LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013). We determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that joinder is appropriate because, as set forth above, the Petition (1) is substantially identical to the fuboTV/MasterClass petition, (2) contains the same grounds based on the same evidence, and (3) relies on the same testimony from the same expert (Dr. Henry Houh, Ex. 1003). Mot. 1, 5–10. Petitioner also represents that joinder will not impact the fuboTV/MasterClass IPR schedule. See, e.g., Mot. 6–7 (“joinder will have minimal, if any, impact on the trial schedule, as all issues are substantively identical, and Petitioner will accept an “understudy” role. . . . Lastly, the” slip op. at 10
NonePatents in suitUS 8,868,772 - PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00299 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–22 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kircher and Krug.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims and on all grounds raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s description is more restrictive than that of Petitioner because it requires the POSITA to have more experience or education in the relevant field. Based on the current record and for the purposes of this 6 The current record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. proposed definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’271 Patent and the asserted prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). However, the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation. Although we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, our determination regarding Petitioner’s challenge does not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions, and our conclusions would be the same under either definition. To the extent the level of ordinary skill in the art is in dispute or makes a material difference in the obviousness analysis, the parties should brief their respective positions in this regard during trial.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Although the specification broadly defines “module,” the language of the claims better supports Patent Owner’s argument that the computer program module limitations connote structure in the form of software instructions or code. Prelim. Resp. 13–14 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–24; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 15–28). Specifically, claim 1 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing computer program modules configured to execute on the computer processor, the computer program modules comprising. . . a monitoring module . . . a first relevance measurement module . . . a second relevance measurement module . . . and a relevance analysis module. Ex. 1001, 47:30–32. And, claim 6 recites the computer-program product having a computer-readable storage medium having computer program instructions encoded thereon comprising . . . a monitoring module . . . a first relevance measurement module . . . a second relevance measurement module . . . and a relevance analysis module. Id. 48:19–51. That language suggests that the module limitations are software instructions or code because the modules are defined as “computer program modules” or “computer program instructions.” Id. at 47:32, 48:20– readable storage medium and are instructions to be executed by a processor, further suggesting the modules are software instructions or code. Id. at 47:30–32, 48:16–21. The testimony of Dr. Kahn, which we credit for institution purposes, supports that understanding; Dr. Kahn states a POSITA would understand that “‘computer program modules’ stored on a ‘computerreadable storage medium’ refers to software instructions or code.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. Furthermore, the computer program module limitations are” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“That is, Petitioner asserts that the claim requires only one of “a local importance,” “a global importance,” “a content relevance,” or “one or more actions on the piece of electronic content.” Id. We adopt Petitioner’s construction, which Patent Owner does not dispute at this stage in the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. The claimed determination is “based at least in part on one or more measures derived from the group” members listed. As such, the claim language is clear that only one member of the group, i.e., one of limitations 1[g][i]–1[g][iv], is required to meet the claim. Independent claims 6 and 7 recite similar limitations as claim 1, and for purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s claim construction for those similar limitations. See Ex. 1001, 48:35–46, 49:1–11.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,716,217 - 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 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00821 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 23 is unpatentable as obvious over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner waived entry of a Preliminary Response, did not enter a Patent Owner Response, and accordingly does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’698 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“prosecution history of the ’698 patent for understanding the phrase “at least one number based on,” recited in claim 23. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004, 165– 166). Petitioner proposes that the plain meaning of this phrase was expressly described during prosecution of the application that became the ’698 patent, where the Applicant argued that [a]s the specification explains, the “number based on []” is intended to refer to the output of any “formula,” including but not limited to a difference formula, that serves as a comparison “metric” (including “logical comparisons, arithmetically threshold (rounded) logical comparisons, arithmetic, probabilistic, fuzzy logic, neural network enabled, [or] heuristic” [¶00561], or “determinations that are based on derivatives, mathematical normalizations, correlation functions, functions” [¶0139]). Ex. 1004, 165–166. For purposes of this Decision we apply Petitioner’s proposed plain meaning for this phrase as it is reasonably based on the prosecution history of the ’698 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, apart from the “at least one number based on” phrase, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“advance arguments directed to claim 23. Accordingly, Patent Owner has forfeited any argument regarding Petitioner’s contentions for these claims. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 23, which Patent Owner does not contest, and find them persuasive. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own. Based on Petitioner’s arguments and accompanying evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 23 would have been unpatentable over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda. 5. Conclusion on Obviousness For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 23 is unpatentable over the combined teachings of Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,594,698 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,594,698 - 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. v. Broadphone LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00155 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree that the language in the Specification of the ’811 patent does not indicate that the patentee intended to either act as its own lexicographer, or disavow the full scope of the claim term. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning” (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002))); Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (guiding that disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope “must ‘be both clear and unmistakable’ to one of ordinary skill in the art” (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). However, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion that “device-specific target location” means “a target location that is specific to a particular device” is not supported adequately. In particular, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313) (emphasis added). Importantly, Dr. Cooklev does not cite to any portions of the intrinsic evidence to support his claim construction. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 34; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (“conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court”). Given the conclusory nature of Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, and because the intrinsic evidence is sufficiently clear, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered construction of “device-specific target location.”” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’811 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner relies solely on the testimony of Dr. Cooklev to support its proffered claim construction. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 34). Dr. Cooklev testifies, “[b]ased on my review of the patent and intrinsic record, [“device-specific target location”] has a plain and ordinary meaning and is used by the claims with that meaning, which requires a target location that is specific to a particular device.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 34. Other than further opining that “I see no lexicography or disclaimer in the intrinsic record indicating that ‘device-specific target [location]’ refers to a location that is generally applicable to numerous devices, or that the term otherwise has a meaning broader than its plain and ordinary meaning,” Dr. Cooklev provides no support for why the claimed “device-specific target location” “requires a target location that is specific to a particular device.” See id. We agree that the language in the Specification of the ’811 patent does not indicate that the patentee intended to either act as its own lexicographer, or disavow the full scope of the claim term. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning” (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002))); Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (guiding that disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope “must ‘be both clear and unmistakable’ to one of ordinary skill in the art” (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). However, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion that “device-specific target location” means “a target location that is specific to a particular device” is not supported adequately. In particular, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313) (emphasis added). Importantly, Dr. Cooklev does not cite to any portions of the intrinsic evidence to support his claim construction. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 34; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (“conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court”). Given the conclusory nature of Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, and because the intrinsic evidence is sufficiently clear, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered construction of “device-specific target location.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“c) Analysis Patent Owner’s Response does not advance arguments directed to claims 1 and 15. See generally PO Resp. Accordingly, Patent Owner has forfeited any argument regarding Petitioner’s contentions for these claims. See In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that a patent owner forfeits an issue presented in its preliminary response if it fails to renew the issue in its response after trial is instituted). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 15, which Patent Owner does not contest, and find them persuasive. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own. Based on Petitioner’s arguments and accompanying evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 15 would have been unpatentable over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,341,811 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,341,811
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.