• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01336 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 24, and 25 are unpatentable; claims 10, 13, 14, 17, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable, principally due to missing limitations or insufficient motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “information” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as “data,” and that Patent Owner’s narrower construction of “first information” and “second information” lacks sufficient support in the intrinsic record. We agree with Petitioner that the ’802 patent Specification defines “information” as data when it uses the phrase “information (i.e., data).” See Ex. 1001, 5:60–62 (“Information (i.e., data) to be transmitted may be received in a baseband digital system 250, such as a wireless digital baseband processor.” (emphasis added)), 11:30–32 (“In this example, the signals 911 and 912 carry the same information (data).” (emphasis added)). As the Federal Circuit has explained, a “specification’s use of ‘i.e.’ signals an intent to define the word to which it refers.” Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). slip op. at 13

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

    “argument based on Fernandez alone, we find that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a motivation to remove the amplification from each of Fernandez’s signal generators 10A-10E and add a single power amplifier instead. See Pet. 76–77 Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Petitioner’s only rationale for this modification to Fernandez is that “[a] single amplifier has several advantages compared to multiple amplifiers, including lower complexity, a single (vs. multiple) potential point of failure, and lower cost,” and that one of ordinary skill “would have found a single amplifier to be a simple matter of design preference.” Pet. 76–77. Dr. Almeroth simply repeats these cursory allegations without providing any further explanation or evidentiary support. Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Moreover, Dr. Cooklev provides credible testimony that replacing Fernandez’s amplification in signal generators 10A–10E with a single amplifier would not necessarily have the advantages that Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 99, 104–105. For example, Dr. Cooklev testifies that a single amplifier would need to have a wider bandwidth than the multiple amplifiers used in Fernandez, which could cause potential stability issues. Id. ¶ 105. According to Dr. Cooklev, this wider bandwidth would require more circuit elements, and thus would not provide the reduction in space usage and power consumption that Petitioner asserts. Id. According to Dr. Cooklev, Montojo also points to several “substantial, and potentially impractical, drawbacks” of using a single amplifier for multiple signal generators, including power constraints imposed by spectral emission requirements and on-board battery capacity. Id. ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7– 8). In light of this testimony, which we find credible, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace the multiple amplifiers in Fernandez’s signal generators with a single amplifier.” slip op. at 65

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “argument based on Fernandez alone, we find that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a motivation to remove the amplification from each of Fernandez’s signal generators 10A-10E and add a single power amplifier instead. See Pet. 76–77 Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Petitioner’s only rationale for this modification to Fernandez is that “[a] single amplifier has several advantages compared to multiple amplifiers, including lower complexity, a single (vs. multiple) potential point of failure, and lower cost,” and that one of ordinary skill “would have found a single amplifier to be a simple matter of design preference.” Pet. 76–77. Dr. Almeroth simply repeats these cursory allegations without providing any further explanation or evidentiary support. Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Moreover, Dr. Cooklev provides credible testimony that replacing Fernandez’s amplification in signal generators 10A–10E with a single amplifier would not necessarily have the advantages that Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 99, 104–105. For example, Dr. Cooklev testifies that a single amplifier would need to have a wider bandwidth than the multiple amplifiers used in Fernandez, which could cause potential stability issues. Id. ¶ 105. According to Dr. Cooklev, this wider bandwidth would require more circuit elements, and thus would not provide the reduction in space usage and power consumption that Petitioner asserts. Id. According to Dr. Cooklev, Montojo also points to several “substantial, and potentially impractical, drawbacks” of using a single amplifier for multiple signal generators, including power constraints imposed by spectral emission requirements and on-board battery capacity. Id. ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7– 8). In light of this testimony, which we find credible, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace the multiple amplifiers in Fernandez’s signal generators with a single amplifier.” slip op. at 65

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We find credible and agree with Dr. Cooklev’s testimony that the predistortion signals from tables 17-1 and 17-2 “are cancelled out by Suzuki’s amplifier” 28. Ex. 2013 ¶ 50. Dr. Cooklev supports his opinion by referring to paragraph 1 of Suzuki, which states that Suzuki’s invention is directed to “a multi-band lookup table type predistorter” (such as the one implemented using lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 in Figure 6) that “compensates for a distortion of a power amplifier.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 54; Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. Dr. Cooklev’s opinion is also supported by paragraph 3 of Suzuki, which explains that a conventional digital predistorter uses a lookup table “for linearizing non-linear characteristics of an amplifier.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 3; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. Dr. Cooklev further supports his opinion by relying on Suzuki’s disclosure in paragraph 46 that power amplifier 28 is “subject to distortion compensation” by the predistorter, and that distortion components in the signal output by the amplifier are canceled by “distortion compensation data [that] are read out from the lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 and provided to the adders 13-1 and 13-2, respectively.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 46; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. And, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion is supported by Suzuki’s disclosure in paragraph 47 that the distortion compensation added by adders 13-1 and 13-2 add the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 “to perform distortion compensation (addition of predistortion)” to “signals to be transmitted.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 47; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. Petitioner agrees that the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 “are added to the respective frequency band from” input signal ST “in order to predistort the output signal, which is then transmitted,” and does not dispute that the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 is ultimately cancelled out by the distortion created by amplifier 28. Pet. Reply 8. In light of the above evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that Suzuki’s distortion components from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 in Figure 6 (which Petitioner relies on for the first and second digital signals in limitations 10a and 10b) are cancelled out by the distortion created by power amplifier 28 before the signal is ultimately transmitted. We agree with Petitioner that these first and second digital signals include data in the form of distortion compensation data. However, because these signals are cancelled by the distortion from amplifier 28 before transmission, the data from these signals is never transmitted. Thus, the first and second digital signals identified by Petitioner (the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2) do not comprise data “to be transmitted,” as limitations 10a and 10b require.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 7,924,802 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,924,802
• Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00806 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 15–17, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 14 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed paramagnetic flux paths in Wakuda lacked adequate support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s expert declarant contends that person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of systems incorporating linear actuators; additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree. Ex. 1003 ¶ 33. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 3. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’830 patent specification.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The parties agree that independent claims 1, 19, and 20 include means plus function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.8 Pet. 3–7; PO Resp. 6–14. An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. In particular, the parties agree that the “driving component” and “control component” requirements of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are means plus function limitations. Pet. 3–7; PO Resp. 6–14. Construing a means plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 involves two steps: 1) identifying the claimed function and 2) identifying in the specification the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Therefore, the specification clearly links the function of “control[ing] supply of power from the power supply to . . . cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency . . . specified by one or more stored values” at least to portions of steps 706 and 708 of the flow diagram algorithm of Figure 7A, as described above. Thus, the control component requires a microprocessor and memory with algorithmic structure including a timing algorithm or similar coding for creating a control output signal that flips to control the direction of current flow through a coil (e.g., coil 514, Fig. 5, coil 626, Fig. 6), where the coil is structure that corresponds to the recited “driving component,” as noted above.11 We adopt the District Court’s conclusion in the Apple litigation that the “control component” structure itself does not require an H-bridge switch, but only requires that the processor generates the “d” inputs to the switch; and further that the structure does not require does not require computing initial default values as specified in step 702 of Figure 7A (i.e., values not specified by a user). Ex. 3001, 30–33, 35. This is in accord with settled law 11 “Rather than using a formal timer mechanism, certain implementations may simply employ counted loops or other simple programming techniques for periodically carrying out tasks.” Ex. 1001, 7:17–20. that limits the structure to that necessary to perform the claimed function. 12 By the same token, we modify the District Court’s construction to the extent it would require, based on such steps as 706, 710, and 716, a specific order of the steps of generating the “p” and “d” values. The claims only require the control component to control the power supply to cause oscillation at a specified frequency and amplitude, but do not require the frequency value to be generated before the amplitude value, or vice versa.” slip op. at 18

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

    “to include the ability disclosed in Ramsay to allow a user to customize and store parameters associated with haptic effects, such as creating “haptic track files” that specify variations in the amplitude and frequency of the effect over time to achieve a desired effect. Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 15, 25– 28, 37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 192–193). Petitioner argues that this combination would have been motivated by the desire to expand the functionalities of haptic devices to allow end users to create and customize haptic effects, to provide a fuller haptic experience, and to be able to store haptic effects to save processing power compared to real-time generated effects. Id. at 47–49 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15, 30, 47, 53–57; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 194–196). Petitioner argues that this making combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that both references deal with linear actuators, both disclose storing frequency and amplitude values, and the combination involves routine knowledge of software techniques. Id. at 49–50 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:3–9; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 17, 26–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 197–198). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious to use the H-bridge switch of Rossi as part of the Gregorio actuator drive circuit 16 in the asserted Gregorio-Ramsay combination to periodically switch the polarity of drive signals to electric coil 28 of Gregorio, and thus oscillate magnet 27, under the control of a signal from processor 12 of Gregorio. Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 211). Petitioner argues that this combination would have been motivated because Gregorio does not disclose implementation details and therefore one of ordinary skill would have looked toward teachings like Rossi to fill in those details, and that an H-bridge switch was a well-known example circuit for implementing a change in “current flow direction/polarity” for “push” and “pull” actions in a system, and was a simple, cost-effective, and reliable circuit design. Id. at 56–58 (citing Ex. 1020, Abstr., Figs. 4, 6, 1:65–3:54; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 212–217). Petitioner argues that making this combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that it involved known techniques through routine circuit design considerations and software instructions for generating the control signal. Id. at 58 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 218). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious to modify the Gregorio-Ramsay-Rossi combination, using the control algorithm disclosed in Aldrich, to replace the monitoring technique of Gregorio with that of Aldrich to maintain a resonance frequency by incrementing or decrementing the drive frequency. Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:22–28, 4:42–48; Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 219). Petitioner’s expert provides implementation details of Aldrich, including that the Aldrich hill-climb technique would use a Boolean value to indicate whether the frequency was being increased, with local variables set to default values, and use integer values when processing sensor signals. Id. at 59–60 (citing Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 220–222). Petitioner argues that these modifications would have been motivated to improve the Gregorio system using the Aldrich feedback algorithm for targeting a resonant frequency, given that the Gregorio approach had shortcomings that required a monitoring period with reduced haptic feedback, receiving weak EMF signals. Id. at 61–62 (citing Ex. 2004, 3:65–5:55, 5:63–65; Ex. 1021, 1–3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 223–227). Petitioner argues that making this combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that it involved known techniques for improvement to yield predictable results, readily implemented via software executed by the microprocessor. Id. at 62–63 (citing Ex. 2004, 2:44–50; Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 229). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 9,941,830 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,941,830
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00175 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Biswas and Kumar; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–64). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Claim terms need only be construed 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). The parties submit that no claim construction is necessary. Pet. 14; PO Resp. 15. We have not been presented with the need to construe any claim terms for this Decision. D.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Biswas and Kumar. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have known to use the masking techniques exemplified by Kumar to implement the disclosed operation in Biswas of edge routers providing hosts with port number ranges. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 97–101. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Biswas and Kumar.” slip op. at 13

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

    “This disclosure is inconsistent with any suggestion that the Fangman system, when routing a telephone call to its destination, identifies the private IP address of the destination telephone by determining the port range to which the port number of the destination telephone belongs. When Fangman describes the NAPPT process, it does not indicate that port ranges are used, but rather repeatedly states that port numbers are used: The [service gateway] receives a data packet from the IP device, including a public destination IP address . . . a destination port number . . . and source information, NAPPTs the data packet, using the [public destination IP address] and the [destination port number] to identify the [IP telephone] . . . . Ex. 1024, code (57). Performing NAPPT on the data packet received from the destination may include using the public destination IP address and the destination port number to uniquely identify the IP telephone, and changing the public destination IP address to a private source IP address of the IP telephone while leaving the destination port number unchanged. Ex. 1024, 4:28–33. The SG 170 may maintain a table of semi-permanent mappings of the external IP address and ports to the internal hosts and ports. Ex. 1024, 8:49–51.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,693,369 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,693,369
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Memoryweb, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 31, 2023 · IPR2022-00221 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable under the stated obviousness grounds; claims 14 and 15 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 at the time of the invention of the ’658 Patent would have had the following education and experience: (1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least one year of experience designing graphical user interfaces for applications such as photo organization systems . . . Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). Patent Owner does not challenge this definition of the level of skill at this time. Prelim. Resp. 45. 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 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The ’658 Patent states, “Application Views–The Application Views utilizes the Application’s ability to associate Digital Tags to Digital Files and display them in customized views such as Uploads, Collections, Slideshow, Location, Timeline, Family Tree, People Profile, and Recipes.” Ex. 1001, 9:18–22. Thus, we understand “application view” to mean a customized display of digital tags or files and we adopt this definition of “application view.” Id. Turning to Patent Owner’s contention that the claim language requires the application view of be separate and distinct relative to other claimed views, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s sweeping statement. Rather, each claim must be considered to determine if the structure of the claim requires a view that is separate and distinct from the application view or if the claim further defines the application view.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed claim construction “allows an infinite number of intervening events.” PO Sur-reply 3. Rather, Petitioner’s position, as supported by Dr. Greenspun’s testimony, is that “ a POSITA would have recognized that the term ‘responsive to’ merely requires that the second event happen ‘subsequent to’ the first event based on a combination of user interaction and software implementation.” Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 2022, 42:21–44:22; Ex. 2024, 108:20–109:12; Ex. 1047 ¶ 7). We credit Dr. Greenspun’s testimony regarding claim construction for “responsive to a click or tap” and adopt this definition as our own. Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 7–11.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “Although, we agree with Patent Owner, that Petitioner does not dispute that in its second combination Okamura’s cluster maps and their associated geographic information would be lost, we do not see how this observation renders the proposed combination untenable. Petitioner has shown how the proposed combination meets limitations [1b]–[1g] of claim 1. Pet. 26–28, 37–56. To the extent that Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the Petitioner’s first proposed combination apply to its second proposed combination, those arguments are unconvincing for the reasons discussed above. In particular, we determine that the benefits of “better managing digital content” and an enhanced user experience “by providing ‘a good view of what location is associated with what’” outweigh any loss of geographical information. See Pet. 22–30. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Okamura and Belitz as combined in Petitioner’s second combination would have rendered displaying of first and second location selectable thumbnails as required by limitations [1b]–[1g] obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 10,423,658 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,423,658
• Fitbit LLC v. Philips North America LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2021 · IPR2020-00910 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–10, 13, 15, 16, 22, and 24–26 are unpatentable; claim 14 is not shown unpatentable because the cited grounds do not establish separate data input/output ports.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the respective positions are very similar and our analysis would be the same under either Patent Owner’s or Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, from our review of the record, we find Patent Owner’s more specific articulation of the relevant experience is appropriate and consistent with the disclosure of the ’233 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Thus, we adopt Patent Owner’s description.” slip op. at 12

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

    “obviousness challenges, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments based on its characterizations of the plain meaning of “security mechanism governing information transmitted between the first personal device and the second device.” The ’233 patent explicitly discloses that the use of passwords or encryption can be used to secure information transmitted between devices. Ex. 1001, 8:12–22, 13:25–67. The use of passwords or security keys certainly provides a form of “governing” of information transmitted between devices. We note that the courts in the Fitbit and Garmin cases have concluded likewise: [Patent Owner’s expert] provides minimal explanation for — and cites to no evidence in support of — his opinion that encryption ‘does not govern or control [the] transmission [of information]’ . . . [and] that opinion appears to conflict with the specification and claims. Ex. 1081, 25. [Patent Owner’s expert’s] conclusory opinion should not be afforded any weight. Ex. 2023, 14. We conclude that it is unnecessary to provide an explicit construction of the phrase at issue, and do not agree with Patent Owner that techniques such as the use of passwords or encryption fall outside of the scope of claim 1.” slip op. at 17

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

    “directional communications module to transition from the powered-down state to the powered-up state.” Ex. 1001, 16:18–20. Petitioner proposes to construe this portion of the claim pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, including specifying the disclosed structure corresponding to the recited function as “components capable of providing a magnetic, mechanical, sound or ultrasound, infrared, or radio frequency signal, and structural equivalents thereof.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:15–60, 16:16–30; Paradiso Decl. ¶¶ 49–50). Petitioner, however, also states that “[t]he ’233 patent explains that the ‘means for signaling’ can be ‘a mechanical signal, such as throwing a switch or applying pressure to a pad.’” Pet. 83; see Ex. 1001, 14:35–36. Therefore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed articulation of the corresponding structure is correct. In our Decision to Institute, we stated that it is sufficient for present purposes to note that the disclosed structure that performs the function recited in claim 26 includes a switch that turns the bi-directional communications module on and off. Dec. 12. Patent Owner agrees that such structure is encompassed by the “means for signaling. . .” of claim 26. PO Resp. 12. We reiterate for purposes of this Decision that it is sufficient to note that the disclosed structure includes a switch as described.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “includes the claimed short-range bi-directional wireless communications module, and explains that this term is meant to “include premises and facility based wireless networks.” Ex. 1001, 5:57–65. Even though wireless communications modules necessarily have inputs and outputs, we preliminarily concluded, based on these disclosures, that the data input/output ports of claim 14 had to be separate from the “short-range bi-directional wireless communications module” of claim 1 — otherwise the requirement of data input/output ports in claim 14 would be superfluous. Dec. 38–39. See Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1399 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (favoring a construction that does not render another limitation “superfluous”). Petitioner points out that there is no example disclosed in the ’233 patent that embodies claim 14 — i.e., no example in which two devices communicate with each other, both using a local area wireless LAW 330 module and a Data I/O port 160. Reply 7. Therefore, argues Petitioner, claim 14 should not be construed to cover subject matter not disclosed in the ’233 patent. Reply 9. However, as both Petitioner and Patent Owner point out, the ’233 patent discloses that both the personal medical device PMD 100 shown in Figure 2 and the medical device interface MDI 600 shown in Figure 4C can include both a wireless communication module 300 and data I/O ports 160, which provides support for claim 14, notwithstanding that the specific connections of components required by claim 14 are not explicitly illustrated. Reply 7–8; Sur-Reply 10–11; Ex. 1001, Fig. 2, 3:47–49, 54–55. Moreover, Petitioner admits that the example of Figure 3A, which uses wireless communication modules 300, “does not include a data I/O port like claim 14.” Reply 8 (emphasis added). This admission contradicts Petitioner’s argument that “wireless communications module” and “data input/output port” are two terms that refer to the same structure. Reply 9 (citing Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings, not that they necessarily refer to two different structures”)). Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary conclusion as expressed in the Institution Decision that the data input/output ports of claim 14 are separate from the “short-range bi-directional wireless communications module[s]” of claim 1.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,088,233 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,088,233
• Fitbit LLC v. Philips North America LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2021 · IPR2020-00783 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–10, 13, 15, 16, 22, and 24–26 are unpatentable; claim 14 was not shown unpatentable because the references did not disclose separate data input/output ports.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the respective positions are very similar and our analysis would be the same under either Patent Owner’s or Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, from our review of the record, we find Patent Owner’s more specific articulation of the relevant experience is appropriate and consistent with the disclosure of the ’233 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Thus, we adopt Patent Owner’s description.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “From our review of the record, including the testimony of Petitioner’s expert Dr. Paradiso, we are persuaded that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the reliance on the combinations of Jacobsen with Quy for Ground 4, Geva for Ground 5, and Reber for Ground 6. For each ground, Petitioner’s reliance on the tertiary references demonstrates that the particular features disclosed (Bluetooth, GPS, and a power button) were well known and readily incorporated into a Jacobson-type system, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success. Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive, not sufficiently taking into account that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Instead, the relevant issue is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Moreover, as Petitioner points out, the fact that an asserted combination introduces “simultaneous advantages and disadvantages [] does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006).” slip op. at 42

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

    “From our review of the record, including the testimony of Petitioner’s expert Dr. Paradiso, we are persuaded that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the reliance on the combinations of Jacobsen with Quy for Ground 4, Geva for Ground 5, and Reber for Ground 6. For each ground, Petitioner’s reliance on the tertiary references demonstrates that the particular features disclosed (Bluetooth, GPS, and a power button) were well known and readily incorporated into a Jacobson-type system, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success. Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive, not sufficiently taking into account that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Instead, the relevant issue is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Moreover, as Petitioner points out, the fact that an asserted combination introduces “simultaneous advantages and disadvantages [] does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious over Jacobsen and Quy, that claims 24 and 25 would have been obvious over Jacobsen and Geva, and that claim 26 would have been obvious over Jacobsen and Reber.” slip op. at 42

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

    “Like for Grounds 4–6, we are persuaded that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the reliance on the combination of Say and Gabai. Although Gabai is directed to an interactive toy, its disclosure relating to bi-directional wireless communications with a base communication unit is pertinent art— satisfying the criterion that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 15, 16, and 22 would have been obvious over Say and Gabai.” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 7,088,233 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,088,233
• Apple, Inc. v. Uusi, LLC D/B/A NartronSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00358 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 94, 96, 101–106, 115, and 116 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 37–39, 97–99, and 107–109 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “§ 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we instituted an inter partes review of the challenged claims. Paper 12 (“Inst. Dec.”). In the Institution Decision, we determined Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to at least one 1 As discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner that claim 117 is not challenged in this proceeding. challenged claim, and we instituted trial on all claims and all grounds in the Petition. Inst. Dec. 67–68.” slip op. at 2

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

    “The ‘183 patent grew out of a “study” which the inventor performed to determine the optimal scan frequencies for close-proximity touch arrays. The ‘183 patent describes this study, and then reports its conclusion: “higher frequencies” are optimal. The ‘183 patent’s “switching circuit” incorporates the “use of higher frequencies,” as suggested by the study.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 5,796,183 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,796,183

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.