- Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2023-01335 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, and 13 are unpatentable over Conroy and Finkelstein or Conroy; claims 14–18 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are not inclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to require a specific number of years (or a fully bounded range) in the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. First, Patent Owner has not offered any legal authority supporting or justifying its position. Second, using the term “at least [X] years” is common practice and generally understood to be an approximation regarding the minimum level of skill of a hypothetical person—in other words, no precision can truly be expected of the specific number of years in this context. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person.”). The point of the exercise is to provide context for a holistic obviousness analysis. See id. (setting out “various factors” used to analyze the level of ordinary skill); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the hypothetical person is an “an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability”). We are not persuaded of a need for strict precision in the number of years of experience of a hypothetical person used in our analysis in this case. Third, Patent Owner asks for no particular relief based upon its argument. That is, even if we agreed to remove “at least,” Patent Owner does not argue that the outcome of the Decision would be any different.1 In conclusion, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is reasonably consistent with the level of skill implied in the disclosure of the ’833 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Pet. 10. Patent Owner provides a construction for the term “independent” of claim 1. PO Resp. 12–18. For context, claim 1 requires first and second domains, wherein “each of the first and second domains [] operate at an independent voltage and frequency.” Patent Owner provides its analysis and concludes that claim 1 requires that the voltage and frequency of the first and second domains to be “controlled separately from one another.” PO Resp. 14, 15. We disagree with Patent Owner’s conclusion. In particular, we note that Patent Owner is attempting to add a “control” limitation to the claim. The claim does not require independent control of the first and second domains, it requires them “to operate at an independent voltage and frequency.” That is, by the plain language of the claims, what is independent is the voltage and frequency of the first domain compared to the voltage and frequency of the second domain. Patent Owner identifies many passages in the ’833 patent specification allegedly supporting its position, but we do not find any of these passages persuades us to agree with Patent Owner’s position. See PO Resp. 12–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:13–17, 1:63–66, 7:59–62, 8:27–31, 8:38– 46, 10:4–8). These passages mostly state that the domains are independent, which we understand to mean “separate” in this context. Ex. 1001, 1:63–66, 7:59–62, 8:27–31, 8:38–46, 10:4–8; accord PO Resp. 14 (summarizing these citations and concluding that “the term ‘independent’ is used in its ordinary sense to mean ‘separate.’”); Ex. 2002 ¶ 33 (same). One passage is similar to the claim language, and recites that a core can be “of an independent power domain and can be configured to operate at an independent voltage and/or frequency.” Id. at 8:27–31. We see nothing in these passages that would require independent control as opposed to “operate at an independent voltage and frequency” as claimed. Instead, in the one passage that is similar to the claim language, it is clear that what is “independent” is the “voltage and/or frequency.” Id. at 8:27–31. Patent Owner then cites to another batch of passages from the ’833 patent and concludes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ’833 patent is describing a situation in which voltages and/or frequencies of the different domains are controlled separately from one another.” PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:56–60, 1:63–66, 2:22–25, 2:32–36, 5:9–12, 5:21, 5:27–44, 7:20–24, 8:38–42, Fig. 1; Ex. 2002 ¶ 33). Most of these passages describe the domains being allocated portions of a power budget. See Ex. 1001, 1:56–60, 2:22–25, 5:28–40, 7:20–24, 8:38–42. One passage is similar to the prior batch of citations, stating that the domains themselves are independent. Id. at 1:63–66. Other passages describe a power control unit doing the allocation, and refers to this as “control.” Id. at 2:32–36, 5:27–26, 5:21, 5:40–44. Last cited by Patent Owner is Figure 1, which has a box labeled “Control First and Second Domains Frequency and Voltage.” Id., Fig. 1 (item 130). Reviewing the cited passages and the figure, we find that the power control unit allocates or controls power. However, the claim is not directed to the power control unit and it does not use the word “control.” The claim requires the first and second domains to have independent voltages and frequencies, and we fail to see any support in the specification to add an additional requirement for independent control of the first and second domains. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“claim 13, it is the domain that is allocated the power budget (as opposed to the domain’s individual cores). See Ex. 1001, 12:57–59 (“allocate a variable power budget between the . . . domains”), 1:56–66 (explaining domains— “the term ‘domain’ is used to mean a collection of hardware and/or logic that operates at the same voltage and frequency point”). We agree with Patent Owner and credit its expert that Nussbaum is concerned with the power settings of each individual core, GPU, or other computational unit. Ex. 2003 ¶ 63. Even if, in one passage, Nussbaum talks about power reallocation in “computational units, such as the CPU or [GPU],” in context it is clear that the allocations remain on the individual, e.g., core, level. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 19– 20, 21 (Table 1), 23 (Table 2), 24. First, in the sentence just cited, Nussbaum disparages treating units homogenously, i.e., adjusting them in groups or domains (as required by claim 13). Id. ¶ 19. Then, Nussbaum praises distributing power “among the active cores or other computational units,” i.e., on an individual or core level. Id. In this phrase, Nussbaum is not using “computational units” as a word meaning “CPU,” because Nussbaum already directly references the “cores” in the phrase. Id. Nussbaum later discusses figuring out how each core reacts to power changes, in order to determine which cores can better exploit additional power. Id. ¶¶ 25–28. For these reasons, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Nussbaum does not disclose allocating power to a plurality of cores as a single domain (Ex. 2002 ¶ 63), which is consistent with the above-noted disclosures of Nussbaum.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“not address these passages of the Petition. See generally PO Resp. 57–59, Sur-reply 17–18. Instead, Patent Owner challenges a separate, general rationale that Petitioner made at the beginning of its ground. See Pet. 69. Rationales that are broad and general may be persuasive. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]ationale[s] [are] not inherently suspect merely because [they’re] generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal. Quite the opposite.”). We need not evaluate Petitioner’s general rationale here, however, because we find Petitioner’s unrebutted, specific rationale arguments about providing a user interface to edit or revise the power sharing values to be persuasive. See Pet. 77–78 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1029 ¶ 236). In particular, we agree with Petitioner that providing a user interface to allow a user to edit the power tables, as taught in Finkelstein, would have been a routine and obvious modification to Conroy. As Petitioner’s expert points out, even beyond the teachings of Finkelstein, it was known in the art to allow users control over power allocation. Ex. 1029 ¶ 236 (citing Ex. 1026, 11:13–27 (describing a “user preferences database” containing “parameters and procedures for how to apportion power among various devices”); Ex. 1028 ¶ 17 (“The [power allocation] preference might be determined . . . based on a selection by a user of the system (e.g., via a graphical interface).”)). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed combination is an example of using a known feature to provide a known benefit. The known feature is a user interface, and the known benefit is allowing the user to indicate their preferences through the interface. See Ex. 1029 ¶ 236; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”). Based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has established a reason with rational underpinnings for combining the user level control interface of Finkelstein with the power management system of Conroy.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 8,775,833 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,775,833 - Crusoe Energy Systems, LLC v. Upstream Data Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2025 · PGR2023-00039 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 24 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept; the petitioner did not prove the remaining challenged claims unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id. (citation omitted). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a degree in chemical engineering, petroleum engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field with 1–2 years of experience in designing power generation systems, Blockchain mining systems, or other comparable hands-on experience.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner adds that “[a]lternatively, a person having 3–5 years of experience in the Blockchain mining industry would also qualify as a POSITA” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, or vice versa.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We apply the same claim construction standard used in district court actions under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), namely that articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2024). In applying that standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“To address that “the mining processors are connected to the network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database,” as recited by limitation [1c_iii], Petitioner asserts that CryptoKube’s system includes “Bitcoin miners such as spondooliestech SP35 servers.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4). And, relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Kasdorf, Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that to mine Bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database, which is implemented as a public ledger distributed among many peer-to-peer devices connected to the Internet. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 108–109; Ex. 1010 ¶ 419). Mr. Kasdorf’s declaration testimony is nearly verbatim to the Petition and similarly provides no indication as to what in CryptoKube constitutes a “mining processor” other than his conclusory opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that to mine bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the 19 We note that Mr. Kasdorf’s reliance on Kheterpal is limited to Kheterpal’s background discussion regarding the Bitcoin protocol inasmuch as it “defines a system in which the creation and distribution of the bitcoin cryptocurrency is governed by consensus among a peer-to-peer network” and includes “a public ledger in which new transactions are verified and recorded by members of the network via cryptography.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 4. Ex. 1004 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 4). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that in the Petition, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Kasdorf explains or “cite[s] any evidence regarding which component is the ‘necessarily’ present mining processor (limitation 1[c_i]) or how this unspecified mining processor is ‘connected to the network interface and adapted to . . . communicate with the blockchain database’ (limitation 1[c_iii]).” PO Resp. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 104–105, 108–109).” slip op. at 21
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s contention that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation” (Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 21)) is an improper new argument. In determining whether an argument is a proper argument in reply, we look to see if the Reply argument is responsive to an argument from Patent Owner and expands on a position in the Petition. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[W]e have held that a reply may be proper if it is responsive and simply expands on previously raised arguments.”). Or, if Petitioner relies on previously unidentified disclosure “to make a meaningfully distinct contention.” Id. at 1383 (“[W]e held that a petitioner who asserted in its reply previously unidentified prior-art disclosures ‘to make a meaningfully distinct contention’ was impermissibly raising a new theory of unpatentability.”). We find that Petitioner’s argument in reply is closer to the later situation. Here Petitioner does not expand on a position from the Petition that Patent Owner criticizes based on the merits of the contentions. Rather, Petitioner supplements its conclusory assertion that a “mining processor” is necessarily present in CryptoKube’s spondooliestech SP35 servers (Pet. 23, 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4)) with its new assertion that that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation.” Pet. Reply 11. Petitioner does not purport to have presented this theory in the Petition. Id. Instead, Petitioner argues that this theory was properly raised in response to what Petitioner alleges to be an admission by” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 11,574,372 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,574,372 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 37–70 are unpatentable: claims 37–41, 47, 50–56, 58–59, 60–62, 64–65, and 70 as anticipated by Alden; the remaining challenged claims as obvious over Alden and the listed combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). 3 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/70538 A2 (Exhibit 1010). 4 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/01038 (Exhibit 1006). 5 U.S. Patent No. 4,970,628 (Exhibit 1007). 6 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158 (Exhibit 1008). 7 U.S Patent No. 6,049,749 (Exhibit 1009). 8 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 02/04247 A1 (Exhibit 1011). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (PO Resp. 4), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim Construction We construe claims using the standard that would be applied in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), giving terms their ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and prosecution history. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The Petition asserts that all claim terms should be given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” See Pet. 8. Patent Owner also proposes that the claim terms be given their ordinary meaning, and identifies the “ordinary meaning” for the terms “identify,” “turn,” and “curve,” which we discuss in our analysis below. We otherwise find that that no express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,894,503 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-00993 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 15–17, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 3–6, 9, 14, and 19 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art [“POSITA”] at the critical time “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience related to electronic consumer product design [and the] POSITA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Patent Owner states that it would require experience with electro-mechanical control systems rather than electronic consumer product design. PO Resp. 3. Because Petitioner provides for “similar knowledge and experience through other means,” we do not discern any meaningful distinction. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“Determining whether a limitation that does not use the term “means” invokes § 112, paragraph 6, involves a three-part inquiry: (1) there is a generic placeholder that substitutes for the term “means”; (2) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language; and (3) the limitation does not include the structure, material, or acts necessary to perform the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Tri-Med, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1303–04 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the court must “determine whether the claim nevertheless recites sufficient structure for performing the . . . function to take it outside the bounds of” § 112, paragraph 6).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Limitation [1b] With respect to limitation [1b], a “moveable component,” Petitioner argues that it should be construed as a means (component) having a function (moveable) that corresponds to a structure (a moving weight). Pet. 7. Petitioner argues that “essentially any physical component can perform the function of being moved,” references different types of structure as the moving components in the ’830 patent, and concludes that therefore the term has no definite structure. Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 4A–4G, 14, 15–17). Patent Owner argues for a non-means-plus-function construction of a component that “is capable of being moved.” PO Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 55). Patent Owner argues, and Petitioner agrees, that “there is likely no material difference between” the parties’ proffered constructions such that construction is necessary. Id. at 8; Pet. Reply 7. We agree, because Petitioner has shown, and Patent Owner does not contest, that the prior art teaches such a component under either construction. Infra § II(D)(2)(a). Because Petitioner’s assertions and our determination would be unaffected by its proposed construction, we need not construe this term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that a showing of motivation is required. Whether a proposed combination rests on “combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful.” In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The General Electric decision cited by Petitioner does not hold otherwise. In General Electric, the Federal Circuit considered an obviousness challenge based on combining disclosures from multiple references. See Gen. Elec., 983 F.3d at 1339–40, 1344–52. The Federal Circuit criticized the Board for dissecting an embodiment disclosed in the primary reference into a collection of “individual elements” and requiring the patent challenger to “re-do the work already done” regarding that embodiment in the primary reference. Id. at 1351–52. The Federal Circuit did not consider an obviousness challenge based on combining multiple embodiments from a single reference. See id. at 1344–52. Therefore, we do not agree with Petitioner that no motivation to combine the Figure 3 and Figure 83 embodiments of Fukumoto need be shown.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,941,830 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,941,830 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01003 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 6, 15, 16, and 19 are unpatentable; claims 2, 8–10, 12, 14, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“1. “Call” Terms (Claims 1, 8, and 15) The parties, and their respective experts, agree that “telephone call” (claim 1), “electronic call” (claim 8), and “electronic phone call” (claim 15) should be interpreted to mean “voice communication over an electronic network between at least two parties,” which was Patent Owner’s proposal in the district court case. See Pet. 16, 19 n.8, 58 (citing Ex. 1027, 9);1 Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 51–53; Ex. 2016, 176:10–177:6 (Dr. Kyriakakis agreeing that “there is live voice exchange during a telephone call” (in addition to “background noise”)), 180:22–181:11 (same). Based on our review of the ’090 patent, we agree as well and adopt that interpretation for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 1–col. 5, l. 44 (“Consider an example in which a listener sits at his kitchen table and has an electronic telephone call with his mother.”), Fig. 1. 1 When citing non-patent references, we refer to page numbers added by Petitioner in the bottom-right corner of the exhibit. Listening Person” (Claim 1) and “Sound Localization Point . . . Away From and Proximate to the First Person” (Claim 15) a) Procedural History As explained above, the parties did not propose any express interpretations in their Petition and Response. See Pet. 15; PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner argued, however, that “Petitioner and Dr. Kyriakakis misapprehend the scope and meaning of the [c]hallenged [c]laims.” PO Resp. 35–49. For example, Patent Owner argued that they “mischaracterize [c]laim 1’s scope as exclusively directed at binaural recording (but not binaural synthesis),” claim 8 “inherently us[es] binaural synthesis and HRTF processing,” and “binaural synthesis methods must be employed” for claim 15. Id. at 36, 46, 48–49 (emphasis omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner characterized the dispute between the parties as pertaining to the phrase “away from and proximate to,” where Petitioner proposed an interpretation of “a distance from” and Patent Owner allegedly was proposing “externalization of sound through HRTFs and [6 degree of freedom (6DOF)] tracking of the listener relative to the SLP that represents the talker.” Reply 2–12. Patent Owner responded in its Sur-Reply by stating that Petitioner “mischaracterizes” Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner “disputes constructions that [Patent Owner] never proposed,” and Petitioner’s focus on certain claim language for which Patent Owner “never proposed construction” was “misplaced.” Sur-Reply 1–2, 11. Patent Owner agreed, though, that the parties’ disagreement was “whether the claims require HRTF processing and whether [the] prior art teaches such processing.” Id. at 5; see Tr. 49:19–21 (Patent Owner agreeing that the dispute is “whether the claims require . . . processing with HRTFs”). dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner relies on its earlier arguments regarding claim 17. Pet. 41; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184 (citing earlier analysis of Bedingfield). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Ballas’s wearable frame with head tracking and HRTF processing to Bedingfield-Andrea’s headphones” to “provide[] a more realistic virtual experience,” but does not make any argument that Ballas teaches changing an ITD. Pet. 39–43; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–191. For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that Bedingfield teaches changing an ITD. See supra Section II.D.6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 18 would have been obvious based on Bedingfield, Andrea, and Ballas under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 61
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“exceptional remedy of striking sentences in the Sur-Reply. Patent Owner filed the deposition transcripts of Dr. Welch and Dr. Roginska “only for the limited purpose of allowing the Board to understand the context of the cross-examination” and “does not rely on the[] [e]xhibits for any substantive argument in [the] Sur-Reply.” Sur-Reply v–vi. Patent Owner does not cite Exhibits 2029 and 2030 themselves in its Sur-Reply; it only cites Dr. Kyriakakis’s deposition transcript in this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that its arguments in the Sur-Reply are properly responsive to the Reply because they address Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony where he was questioned about the opinions in his reply declaration (but we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation arguments on the merits, for the reasons explained above). See Mot. to Strike Opp. 3; supra Section II.B.2.e. We also agree, under the particular factual circumstances presented, that filing Exhibits 2029 and 2030 was proper so the Board has the full context in which to evaluate Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is denied.” slip op. at 79
Patent outcomesUS 9,226,090 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,226,090 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-00949 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–14 and 16–20 are unpatentable over Kim; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable over Chang.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is essentially the same as Petitioner’s, for example requiring a bachelor’s degree in science or engineering and “at least two years of relevant work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information.” Id.; Pet. 9. In view of the similarity, our record now before us, and as we did in our Institution Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art as it is essentially the same as that proposed by Patent Owner. Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’619 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“C. Claim Construction We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner indicate that any claim terms require construction. See generally Petition; PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision where no claim terms are in dispute, we need not explicitly construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“What these cases and examples clearly articulate, is that whether there is sufficient description in an anticipation reference for linking different disclosures, elements, and embodiments, is particularly case and fact dependent. Moreover, a finding of anticipation resting upon a reference’s disclosures of elements in different embodiments turns on whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the reference suggests arranging the elements of the embodiments to one another in the same way as the challenged claims. For the reasons that follow, we determine that there is sufficient description and teaching in Kim such that the “combined button” disclosed by Kim, for example in Figure 10(b), can be the same “combined button” as discussed in the embodiment of Figure 18.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As to Patent Owner’s first and second arguments, as we discussed in detail above with respect to anticipation, we find that there is sufficient evidence in Kim itself of contextual and even express links between the various combined button embodiments and Figure 18. Section II.D.2.b)(1)– (4). We have already determined “that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Kim to disclose the ‘combined button’ structure and function that could be implemented on the face or sidewall of a device.” Id. We likewise determine, based on the same evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Kim to suggest that the combined button structure and function, for example in the embodiment of Figure 10(b), could be implemented in an opening on the face or sidewall of a device. Obviousness does not require an instruction manual on how to physically incorporate or combine the disclosures of two embodiments in a reference. As KSR informs us, “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. Moreover, in this case we have only one prior art patent, Kim, so at least the pieces of the puzzle are all in the same box. The persuasive testimony of Dr. Berger that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with electronic devices with sealed and/or insulated button assemblies, and would understand that those assemblies were not limited to the front face of a device,” is unrebutted in this case. Ex. 1003 ¶ 110. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Given the background knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in conjunction with the motivation and teachings in Kim itself for placing sufficient motivation to support the combination of Kim’s Figure 10(b) embodiment with the sidewall placement of the combined button taught in Figure 18 for obviousness purposes. It is well-settled that a single prior art obviousness reference itself can provide motivation for the combination. See General Elec. Co. v. Raytheon Techs. Corp., 983 F.3d 1334, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Reversing the Board’s finding of nonobviousness over a single prior art reference, the Court explained that “the Board’s approach would require a motivation to combine each element of the claim—even those present together in a reference. This analysis unduly dissects prior art references into collections of individual elements, requiring a party showing obviousness to re-do the work already done in the prior art reference.”). Patent Owner’s third argument is unavailing because although Dr. Anthony testifies that “implementing the fingerprint sensor assembly of Kim’s Figure 10 embodiment in the ‘lateral surface’ of Kim’s Figure 18 embodiment would have complicated the manufacturing process for the resulting mobile device,” Dr. Anthony does not provide testimony or evidence that implementing the combined button on the sidewall would have been difficult or beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2009 ¶ 73. We credit Dr. Berger who explains persuasively that “[p]rior to the ’619 patent’s earliest alleged priority date of June 19, 2017, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that a mobile electronic device could include one or more button assemblies in a sidewall.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1013, 4:40, 19:42–20:4, Figs. 13B, 17, 19A, 19B). It is well-settled that a person of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”).” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 10,866,619 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,866,619 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC et al. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01023 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–14 are unpatentable under §103; claims 2, 10, and 17–20 were not shown unpatentable under either asserted ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“research experience in virtual/augmented reality, including visual and audio modeling and rendering” and that “[a]dditional education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37). “Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s definition of [a POSITA].” PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we also adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “[t]he challenged claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction, including their plain meaning.” Pet. 5. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that no claim construction is required. See id. Patent Owner contends “that ‘no express constructions of the claims are necessary.’” PO Resp. 2 (citing Dec. 10). We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). To the extent that the meaning of any claim term is addressed, we use its ordinary and customary meaning as discussed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault disclose or suggest “highlighting, while the user is located in the zone and with a display of the WED, one of the multiple SLPs in the zone when the PED held in the hand of the user is pointed at one of the multiple SLPs in the zone” as required by claim 1. Even if we assume (without deciding) that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is an SLP, we agree with Patent Owner that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is “at the boundary” of its “safe area” (i.e., zone), not “in the zone” as required by limitation 1[c]. PO Sur-reply 4; Ex. 1005, 11:66–12:15. In other words, the virtual fence “defines the zone itself and thus is not in the zone” as the claim requires. PO Sur-reply 4. Petitioner has not addressed this difference between what is claimed and what is disclosed by Pedrotti or explained why the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault would have rendered placement of the virtual fence “in the zone” obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that it would have been obvious for highlighting to occur in response to the user pointing a PED at the virtual fence (or any other virtual image). Rather, Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pedrotti’s system could have used highlighting when the PED is pointed at one of the SLPs, without pointing to sufficient basis in Pedrotti’s disclosure or explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement highlighting in the manner claimed. Pet. 20–22. Dr. Welch similarly testifies, without sufficient support in Pedrotti, regarding what a person of ordinary skill in the art “could” have done. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 268–272, 275–276. Such reasoning is inadequate to demonstrate obviousness because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).” slip op. at 18
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner also makes a number of new arguments in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have used Pedrotti’s system to highlight other SLPs, such as Pedrotti’s virtual ‘weapon[s],’” relying in part on “additional references.” Reply 6–10. Petitioner, however, only briefly referenced virtual sword 802 in its Petition and did not advocate the same theories for limitation 1[c] in its Petition. See Pet. 13 (mentioning a “virtual weapon” in connection with limitation 1[a]), 19–20; Tr. 53:17–55:1. Accordingly, these arguments in the Reply are improper new arguments, which we do not consider. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74 (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (“CTPG”) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.”); Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 10,798,509 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,798,509 - Mianyang Boe Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. / Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-00988 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 15 are unpatentable over Phan; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“experience or over 30 years of experience, for example. In addition, the ’683 patent is directed to “a pixel arrangement structure of an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display” (Ex. 1001, 1:19–21), whereas Patent Owner’s proposed experience is tied to “active-matrix displays.” PO Resp. 5. Given that the field of OLED displays includes both passive and active matrix designs (see generally Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 40–56), we see no reason to restrict the relevant experience to active matrix displays. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed
“Invention” section, Phan states that “[t]he invention [of Phan] relates to a display comprising pixels and dots, including but not limited to” various “display technologies” including “Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED).” Ex. 1005, 1:17–29 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we find that Phan fairly suggests that the pixel arrangements disclosed in Phan—which are part of Phan’s “invention”—may be applied to OLEDs. See Twitter, Inc. v. VidStream LLC, 825 F. App’x 844, 850 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019)) (“[W]hen conducting an obviousness analysis, the Board must consider a prior art reference ‘not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.’”). In making this finding, we note that obviousness is determined from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)), who in this case would have had “2 years of professional experience working with display design, including OLED displays.” See supra § II.B. In light of this specific experience, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been inclined to link Phan’s disclosed pixel arrangements with OLEDs based on the plain statement about related “display technologies” in Phan’s “Field of the Invention” section. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 321, 410–414. For these reasons, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that “Phan does not teach about OLED displays.” PO Resp. 32.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“6 In its Opposition to Petitioner’s first motion to strike, which was filed after the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner implies that the teardown images in the Response speak for themselves and, as such, are entitled to a presumption of nexus. See 1st Strike Opp. 3–4; see also Tr. 102:19–103:15 (similar argument by Patent Owner’s counsel at the oral hearing). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner did not assert an entitlement to a presumption of nexus in the Response, and that Patent Owner’s Opposition is an improper vehicle to introduce such an argument. 1st Strike Reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner did not address in the Response whether the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra smartphone is coextensive with the claims of the ’683 patent. See id.; Pet. Reply 20. Accordingly, we decline to consider any argument that Patent Owner is entitled to a presumption of nexus.” slip op. at 34
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part
“6 In its Opposition to Petitioner’s first motion to strike, which was filed after the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner implies that the teardown images in the Response speak for themselves and, as such, are entitled to a presumption of nexus. See 1st Strike Opp. 3–4; see also Tr. 102:19–103:15 (similar argument by Patent Owner’s counsel at the oral hearing). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner did not assert an entitlement to a presumption of nexus in the Response, and that Patent Owner’s Opposition is an improper vehicle to introduce such an argument. 1st Strike Reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner did not address in the Response whether the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra smartphone is coextensive with the claims of the ’683 patent. See id.; Pet. Reply 20. Accordingly, we decline to consider any argument that Patent Owner is entitled to a presumption of nexus.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 10,854,683 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,854,683
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.