• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01281 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–15, and 17–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson; claim 8 is also unpatentable with Russell.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “been motivated to combine the teachings of Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, and Russell in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra §§ III.E.2(a)–(b). Hence, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 is unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claim would have been obvious over Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, and Russell.” slip op. at 122

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 7,738,471 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,738,471
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00734 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3 are unpatentable as obvious over Gai, Yip, and Kwan; claims 15, 17, and 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious over those references and Georgiou.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “(1) claims 1 and 3 are unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claims would have been obvious over Gai, Yip, and Kwan; and (2) claims 15, 17, and 19–21 are unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claims would have been obvious over Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou. In summary:9” slip op. at 111

  Patent outcomesUS 7,623,518 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,623,518
• Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00329 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 12–15, 17, and 20–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Stone and Hoyos, with Varghese additionally applied to claims 7, 15, and 22.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of biometric authentication techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4. Petitioner also asserts that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard” for an ordinarily skilled artisan. Id. at 4–5. Dr. Jones’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–20. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan except for the language “at least” that qualifies the experience level and allows the experience level to encompass an expert’s level of skill. Inst. Dec. 21. We explained that except for the language “at least” that qualifies the experience level, “Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan comports with the technology and claims of the ’010 patent as well as the asserted references.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). In the Response, Patent Owner notes that for “the purposes of this” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “3. WHETHER STONE IS ANALOGOUS ART (a) General Principles “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). According to the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court’s KSR decision “directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly, stating that ‘familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis by the court) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402). In an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing that a reference is analogous art. See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The scope of analogous art includes references “from the same field of endeavor” and references “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). When evaluating the field of endeavor, a “factfinder must consider each reference’s disclosure in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances,’ and ‘weigh those circumstances from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.’” Airbus, 941 F.3d at 1380 (citations omitted) (quoting Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326); see id. at 1381. Hence, a field-of-endeavor analysis should consider a patent’s claims and written description. See id. at 1380–81.” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “4. WHETHER AN ORDINARILY SKILLED ARTISAN WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE THE TEACHINGS OF THE REFERENCES WITH A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS (a) Petitioner’s Contentions (i) Motivation to Combine: The Proposed Combination To show the proposed combination, Petitioner provides the following annotated version of Stone’s Figure 2 combined with Stone’s Figure 3 together with additional steps according to Hoyos (Pet. 20): The above illustration includes Stone’s Figure 2 showing display 200 on an electronic device, Stone’s Figure 3 showing steps 300 through 318 for transferring funds to a recipient, and the following annotations in red: (1) a dashed line from the “$ Send money” button in Figure 2 to step 300 for “Select Currency for Display” in Figure 3; (2) a dashed line from name box 202 in Figure 2 to step 312 for “Enter Recipient Information” in Figure 3; (3) a dashed line from funding source box 206 in Figure 2 to step 314 for “Enter Funding Source” in Figure 3; (4) a dashed line from the “Send” button 214 in Figure 2 to step 316 for “Confirm?” in Figure 3; and (5) additional steps after a “Yes” determination in step 316 for “Confirm?” as follows: (i) “Capture biometric info”; (ii) “Perform fraud detection”; (iii) “Trans authenticated?”; and (iv) “Stop transaction.” Pet. 20; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 62; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 11–12, 16, 23–24, 29–35, Figs. 2–3.” slip op. at 42

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “5. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 (a) Preamble 1.0 Claim 1 recites “[a] system.” Ex. 1001, 13:56. Petitioner contends that Stone teaches claim 1’s preamble because Stone discloses “system 400 configured to utilize the currency display over a network 402.” Pet. 22 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 40). According to Petitioner, “Stone further describes that its system includes software ‘such as program code and/or data . . . stored on one or more computer readable mediums.’” Id. at 23 (alteration by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 54). Patent Owner makes no arguments specific to claim 1’s preamble. See, e.g., Resp. 14–34; Sur-reply 2–26. Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. Generally, a preamble does not limit a claim. Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We need not decide whether claim 1’s preamble limits the claim because, for the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Jones’s testimony, we agree with” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 9,972,010 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,972,010
• Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00331 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese; the Board did not reach the other asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of biometric authentication techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4. Petitioner also asserts that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard” for an ordinarily skilled artisan. Id. Dr. Jones’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–20. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan except for the language “at least” that qualifies the experience level and allows the experience level to encompass an expert’s level of skill. Inst. Dec. 21. We explained that except for the language “at least” that qualifies the experience level, “Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan comports with the technology and claims of the ’886 patent as well as the asserted references.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). In the Response, Patent Owner notes that for “the purposes of this” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artOther

    “4. WHETHER STONE IS ANALOGOUS ART (a) General Principles “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). According to the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court’s KSR decision “directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly, stating that ‘familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis by the court) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402). In an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing that a reference is analogous art. See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The scope of analogous art includes references “from the same field of endeavor” and references “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). When evaluating the field of endeavor, a “factfinder must consider each reference’s disclosure in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances,’ and ‘weigh those circumstances from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.’” Airbus, 941 F.3d at 1380 (citations omitted) (quoting” slip op. at 40

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successOther

    “5. WHETHER AN ORDINARILY SKILLED ARTISAN WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE THE TEACHINGS OF THE REFERENCES WITH A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS (a) Petitioner’s Contentions (i) Motivation to Combine: The Proposed Combination To show the proposed combination, Petitioner provides the following annotated version of Stone’s Figure 2 combined with Stone’s Figure 3 together with additional steps according to Hoyos and Varghese (Pet. 22): The above illustration includes Stone’s Figure 2 showing display 200 on an electronic device, Stone’s Figure 3 showing steps 300 through 318 for transferring funds to a recipient, and the following annotations in red: (1) a dashed line from the “$ Send money” button in Figure 2 to step 300 for “Select Currency for Display” in Figure 3; (2) a dashed line from name box 202 in Figure 2 to step 312 for “Enter Recipient Information” in Figure 3; (3) a dashed line from funds box 204 in Figure 2 to step 304 for “Enter Amount” in Figure 3; (4) a dashed line from funding source box 206 in Figure 2 to step 314 for “Enter Funding Source” in Figure 3; (5) a dashed line from the “Send” button 214 in Figure 2 to step 316 for “Confirm?” in Figure 3; and (6) additional steps after a “Yes” determination in step 316 for “Confirm?” as follows: (i) “Capture biometric info” followed by “Perform fraud detection”; (ii) “Capture location” followed by “Perform fraud detection”; (iii) “Trans authenticated?”; and (iv) “Stop transaction.” Pet. 22; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 11–12, 16, 23–24, 29–35, Figs. 2–3.” slip op. at 46

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “6. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 (a) Preamble 1.0 Claim 1 recites “[a] system.” Ex. 1001, 14:2. Petitioner contends that Stone teaches claim 1’s preamble because Stone discloses system 400 “configured to utilize the currency display over a network 402.” Pet. 23 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 40); see id. at 70. According to Petitioner, system 400 includes “at least a user device 404,” one or more recipient devices 406, and “at least one payment provider server 408” communicating “over the network 402.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 40). Patent Owner makes no arguments specific to claim 1’s preamble. See, e.g., Resp. 14–36; Sur-reply 2–22. Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. Generally, a preamble does not limit a claim. Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We need not decide whether claim 1’s preamble limits the claim because, for the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Jones’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner that Stone teaches claim 1’s preamble. See Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–88. (b)” slip op. at 76

  Patent outcomesUS 11,526,886 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,526,886
• Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00330 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: claims 1, 4–10, and 13–19 over Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese; claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 over Stone, Varghese, and Borovsky.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “all the evidence in the record, for the foregoing reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Stone and Hoyos. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–69; Ex. 1056 ¶¶ 15–16.” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that “a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (‘POSITA’) at the time of the claimed invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of biometric authentication techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Petitioner further states that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for POSITA.” Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner has applied Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. We apply Petitioner’s undisputed level of skill in the art with the exception of the phrase “at least” which injects potential ambiguity into the level of skill, because Petitioner’s proposed level of skill appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’656 patent and the prior art. C. Claim Construction We apply the same claim construction standard used by Article III” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “III. CONCLUSION14 Weighing the competing evidence and testimony, we determine that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Challenged Claims of the ’656 patent are unpatentable. In summary: 35 Claim(s) Claim(s) Reference(s)/ Claim(s) U.S.C. Shown Not Shown Basis § Unpatentable Unpatentable 1, 4–10, 103(a) Stone, Hoyos, 1, 4–10, 13– 13–19 Varghese 19” slip op. at 86

  Patent outcomesUS 10,713,656 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,713,656
• Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00332 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 10–16, 20, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over Kesanupalli, Challener, and Cheng.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner has applied Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 13. We apply Petitioner’s undisputed level of skill in the art with the exception of the phrase “at least” which injects potential ambiguity into the level of skill, because Petitioner’s proposed level of skill appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’512 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Upon review of the complete record before us, we determine that it is not necessary for us to expressly construe any claim term. 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. Ground 1: Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–6, 10–16, 20, and 21 over” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “For the following reasons, based on the evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner, we are persuaded that Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Kesanupalli and Challener with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–51, 83. First, Patent Owner’s reliance on what Mr. Ramesh Kesanupalli, the individual, allegedly chose not to include in the disclosure of the Kesanupalli patent reference is unavailing. The question of obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art not an actual person who may or may not have been a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ramesh Kesanupalli is one of five named co-inventors on Kesanupalli. Ex. 1006, code (75). 7 Patent Owner’s argument, in essence, is an improper request to limit the Kesanupalli reference to just the explicit problems addressed, solutions proposed, and goals achieved by the Kesanupalli reference. However, “[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)). We have reviewed all of the cases cited by Patent Owner regarding the determination of obviousness. None of them is at odds with the principle stated in Heck.” slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Summary of Claim 1 For all the foregoing reasons, Petitioner establishes a by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kesanupalli, Challener, and Cheng.” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 10,929,512 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,929,512
• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Network System Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00343 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Rădulescu2004 and OCP; the Board did not reach the Weber-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (2006). “[T]he use of the word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part); Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[This] presumption may be rebutted if the properly construed claim limitation itself recites sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1001, 4:46–50. This passage indicates that the interconnect can be a network on a chip and the network on a chip can include wires and buses. That does not necessarily mean that the interconnect can be just wires or buses; rather, it discloses that the interconnect can include wires and buses. In context, the disclosure regarding wires and buses does not support construing the corresponding structure broadly enough to encompass just wires and buses. The networks that constitute the corresponding structure, however, could include networks with wires and buses. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner that the corresponding structure for the interconnect means should not include a mere bus, switch, and point-to-point wire and instead find that the corresponding structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 is a network, which the ’052 patent describes as a multi-hop interconnection between modules separated by one or more network nodes. See Ex. 1001, 2:33–37. Because this structure corresponds to the construction of “interconnect means” proposed by Patent Owner and adopted by the district courts in the TI and Qualcomm litigations (see supra Section III.C.3.b), and we do not rely in our analysis below on a recourse to “equivalents thereto” as permitted by § 112 ¶ 6, we note that our ultimate conclusions on the unpatentability of the challenged claims would be the same if § 112 ¶ 6 did not apply. iii. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we construe “interconnect means” to cover the structure described in the Specification corresponding to the specified functions of “coupling said plurality of processing modules (M, S)” in the context of claim 6 and “coupling said plurality of processing modules (M, S)” and “enabling a connection-based communication having a set of connection properties” in the context of claims 1 and 7—i.e., a “multi-hop interconnection between modules separated by one or more network nodes”—and equivalents thereof.” slip op. at 28

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms 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, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,594,052 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,594,052
• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Network System Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01081 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 6, and 9–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Goossens2003 and Drake; the Board did not reach the Goossens2002 and Drake challenge.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “3. WHETHER AN ORDINARILY SKILLED ARTISAN WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE THE TEACHINGS OF” slip op. at 54

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “Qualcomm”) filed a petition in IPR2024-01081 challenging claims 2, 6, and 9–16 in the ’449 patent on substantively identical grounds to those asserted in Samsung’s Petition. Qualcomm Incorporated v. Network System Technologies, LLC, IPR2024-01081, Paper 1 (“Pet.”).2 Concurrently with filing the petition in IPR2024-01081, Petitioner filed a motion for joinder, seeking joinder as a party in this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). IPR2024-01081, Paper 3. slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “IV. JOINDER AND THE ONE-YEAR TIME BAR IN § 315(b) Regarding joinder, § 315(c) permits joinder as a party and states:” slip op. at 157

  • ExcludeOther

    “In our analyses above, we do not rely on any of the evidence that Petitioner seeks to exclude. See, e.g., supra §§ III.C–III.E. Hence, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to exclude evidence as moot. See, e.g., Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC, IPR2023-00757, Paper 39 at 135 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2024) (dismissing motion to exclude evidence as moot); Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Spero, IPR2023-00335, Paper 40 at 24 (PTAB July 15, 2024) (dismissing motion to exclude evidence as moot).” slip op. at 159

  Patent outcomesUS 7,373,449 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,373,449
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Qualcomm Incorporated v. Network System Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00338 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 6, and 9–16 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Goossens2003 and Drake.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Accordingly, “the teachings of Drake apply directly to systems on” slip op. at 82

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “In October 2024, the Board (1) instituted an inter partes review in IPR2024-01081, (2) granted Petitioner’s motion for joinder in IPR2024- 01081, and (3) joined Petitioner as a party in this proceeding. Paper 16 (“Qualcomm Inst. Dec.”), 50–51; IPR2024-01081, Paper 14 at 50–51. The next day, based on a settlement between Samsung and Patent Owner, the Board granted in part a joint motion to terminate filed by Samsung and Patent Owner and terminated Samsung as a petitioner in this proceeding. See Paper 14 (Joint Motion); Paper 17 (Order).” slip op. at 3

  • ExcludeOther

    “In our analyses above, we do not rely on any of the evidence that Petitioner seeks to exclude. See, e.g., supra §§ III.C–III.E. Hence, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to exclude evidence as moot. See, e.g., Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC, IPR2023-00757, Paper 39 at 135 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2024) (dismissing motion to exclude evidence as moot); Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Spero, IPR2023-00335, Paper 40 at 24 (PTAB July 15, 2024) (dismissing motion to exclude evidence as moot).” slip op. at 159

  Patent outcomesUS 7,373,449 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,373,449
• Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 22, 2025 · IPR2024-00334 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 10–15, 17, 19, and 22–25 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Kesanupalli, Brown, and the applicable additional references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “Burden of Proof The Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2024). That burden only shifts to Patent Owner in limited circumstances not present here. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, evidence which is, more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it.” United States v. C.H. Robinson Co., 760 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotations omitted).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Citing testimony from Dr. McDaniel, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in [] electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of authentication techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–21). Patent Owner states in its Response that “Patent Owner has applied Petitioner’s POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] for the sake of this Response.” PO Resp. 12. We adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except for the qualifier “at least” which would make the stated scope without an upper bound and thus potentially cover the level of skill of an expert. Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is supported by the testimony of Dr. McDaniel (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–21) and not disputed by Patent Owner (PO. Resp. 12). Further, it appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). C.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that the plain and ordinary meaning of a “restricted interface” is “an interface that limits accessibility.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57–60). Petitioner explains: In the ’138 patent specification, disclosure of such an interface is sparse. For an example device that “includes a large and insecure storage 302 attached to a fast processor 304, and a smaller but secure storage 306 attached to a dedicated processor 308 and a sensor 310 (e.g., a camera or a fingerprint reader),” the specification refers to access limitations in connection with an application programming interface (API). APPL-1001, 4:9–13 (“users cannot access the secure storage area, and the fast processor can only communicate with the dedicated processor/sensor via a restricted API”). Thus, POSITA would understand restricted interface to at least include an API that limits accessibility to secure storage, fingerprint sensor, or dedicated processor. APPL-1003, ¶57. Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner has not proposed a construction for either “processor” or “restricted interface,” and states that because the Response does not depend on the meaning of those terms construed by Petitioner, “Patent Owner does not address these positions.” PO Resp. 12. The issues in this case do not require a construction of “processor.” Based on Petitioner’s explanations, which are supported by the cited evidence including the example given in the specification of the ’138 patent, we determine that a “restricted interface” is an interface that limits accessibility and includes within its scope a restricted API. D.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 11,514,138 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,514,138

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.