• Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2026 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable based on obviousness; claims 1–17, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable. Patent Owner’s motion to terminate was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. Mesh Layer Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “5. Analysis On this complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do” slip op. at 31

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “form of nylon and some form of Teflon (and possible combinations thereof) having the specific coefficient of friction range given in limitation [1c] breaks down, because the building blocks of the obviousness argument are not sufficiently identified in Phillips alone, nor in the supporting testimony. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Phillips renders the challenged claims obvious. 6. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Phillips.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “2. Products and Nexus We first consider the issue of whether certain evidence relied upon by” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,998,854 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,998,854
• Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2026 · IPR2025-00611 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated Douglas–Mark and Hamilton-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that experience could substitute for a degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3; PO Resp. 10. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar. For this decision, as in the Institution Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level, which is supported by credible testimonial evidence and is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’774 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:16–52. Our decision would be the same, however, if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner argues that we need to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 2–3; PO Resp. 10. However, the parties contest two material claim-construction issues which we address below. To the extent that the parties’ positions depend on interpreting other claim language in a particular way, we discuss the relevant claim language below in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding the prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that limitation 1.2 must be performed before limitations 1.3 or 1.4. See Ex. 1001, 35:21–24. See Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” (citing Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The evidence suggests that a “target printer” is any printer that is ultimately selected for fabricating the object, and such a printer could send its configuration information either before or after that determination is made in limitation 1.2. This interpretation does not render the word “target” meaningless. At some point, a printer must be determined to be the target printer, which is the one intended to ultimately fabricate the three-dimensional object. But the target printer still exists, and is capable of being queried, before that determination is made. We find the examples in the ’774 patent pertinent to this question. The ’774 patent states that “the target printer may include more than one printer.” Ex. 1001, 18:66–67. In discussing the step of “query target printer for properties 306” (Fig. 3A), the ’774 patent states that “[i]n one aspect, numerous queries are sent to numerous printers, e.g., for use in selecting one or more of the printers as the target printer.” Id. at 19:8–10. Alternatively, “the query is sent to a printer that is not necessarily the target printer as described herein, e.g., when the query or information received from a response to the query is used for the selection of the target printer.” Id. at 19:11–14. Importantly, the second embodiment states that the queried printer “is not necessarily the target printer,” suggesting that the queried printer could be the target printer even before it is determined to be such. Id. at 19:11–12 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence of record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “target printer” can be determined after the query recited in limitation 1.3 or the reception of configuration information recited in limitation 1.4. Thus, the evidence does not impose an ordering between limitations 1.2 and 1.3 or between limitations 1.2 and 1.4. The evidence also does not support Patent Owner’s argument that the two reverse-order examples in the ’774 patent are unclaimed embodiments.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We disagree that Petitioner’s arguments are based on impermissible hindsight, because they are based on the disclosures in Douglas and Mark, and Petitioner has articulated a persuasive reason to combine those references without referring to the ’774 patent itself, as we discuss below. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (an obvious rationale is not improper hindsight if it “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,886,774 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,886,774
• Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. / Thermaltake Inc. v. Chien-Hao ChenAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01230 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable; substitute claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable, and the Revised Motion to Amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “our Institution Decision comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’336 patent and the prior art of record. Inst. Dec. 15. Accordingly, we adopt the level of skill discussed in our Institution Decision. C.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chemicals Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Accordingly, Patent Owner applies a different definition of “side,” in claim 1’s recitation of “an illumination area on at least two sides of the fan at top of the body,” to that definition used to understand “side[s] of the body,” discussed above. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s dictionary definition of “side,” including “an area next to something” applies to “an illumination area on at least two sides of the fan at the top of the body.” See id. at 8–9.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Hasegawa, and Huang teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 3, and that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine those teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 136– 140; Ex. 1008, 8:4–15, 3:20–29. Accordingly, we determine that claim 3 would have been obvious over Lai and Huang, or Lai, Hasegawa, and Huang. F.” slip op. at 50

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “c) Conclusion We conclude that Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend adds new” slip op. at 90

  Patent outcomesUS 10,690,336 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,690,336
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01084 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 8–18, 22–30, and 34–39 are unpatentable as obvious over Shiplacoff and over Shiplacoff combined with Nan.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Petitioner’s declarant, Loren Terveen, Ph.D., testifies that “[s]uch experience could be obtained through research and study in a graduate program or through comparable exposure through industry employment, and additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner agrees with this definition. PO Resp. 13 (citing Dec. 5). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. Also, the level of ordinary skill in the art can be evidenced by the references cited, and we find it commensurate with the cited references in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 5

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

    “according to the Phillips standard.” Pet. 4. Patent Owner contends that under the plain language of claim 1, the “one or more criteria” is satisfied when a “movement parameter” of “the second input” is detected to be “above a movement threshold.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner contends that under the plain language of claim 27, the “second one or more criteria” is satisfied when “a duration parameter” of the “second input” is detected to be “above a duration threshold.” Id. at 15. Patent Owner contends that the plain language of limitations [1j] and [1k] requires an operation capable of detecting a second input by a second contact that includes movement across a display in a direction, determining whether the second input meets or does not meet the recited criteria, and triggers performance of each of the corresponding display actions as appropriate. Id. at 15–19. Patent Owner 15. Id. at 21–23. Patent Owner contends that the plain language of limitations [27d]–[27f] recited in claim 27 require an operation that enables the device to detect a second input by a second contact that includes movement across the display in a direction, determine whether the second input meets or does not meet the two recited criteria, and trigger performance of each of the recited display actions as appropriate. Id. at 19– 20. Patent Owner contends that for “the second input” recited in limitations [1j] and [1k], “the second input” must be detected in the same operational context. Id. at 23–24. In particular, Patent Owner contends that limitations [1j] and [1k], and similar limitations recited in claims 15 and 27, “require a single, common contact event as the starting point of the claimed logic operations.” Id. at 24; see id. at 25–26. We do not need to determine whether Patent Owner’s proposed constructions are correct, because under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, we find that the prior art would have rendered all challenged claims obvious as discussed below in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “at 418; see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is . . . a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Patent Owner’s contention and the supporting testimony of Dr. Madisetti does not address Shiplacoff’s teaching of using a gesture, such as Shiplacoff’s flick gesture, to return to launch screen. We agree with Petitioner and Dr. Terveen in finding that Shiplacoff’s disclosure that “returning to the launch screen . . . is performed by performing a gesture” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 99) such as a flicking gesture (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 126, 129; Ex. 1023 ¶ 13) teaches using a flicking gesture to return from home screen to launch screen. See Pet. 16, 22–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–53, 59; Ex. 1023 ¶ 13; Reply 7–10. Because Dr. Terveen’s testimony is consistent with and supported by the teachings of Shiplacoff as a whole (in contrast to that of Dr. Madisetti), we credit the testimony of Dr. Terveen in finding that using a gesture to return from home screen to launch screen as taught by Shiplacoff, where the gesture is a flick gesture as taught by Shiplacoff, yields the predictable result of using a flick gesture to return from home screen to launch screen. Ex. 1023 ¶ 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–61; KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.” slip op. at 21

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

    “articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used Shiplacoff’s flicking gesture to switch from full screen mode to the launch screen. PO Resp. 47–49. Petitioner contends that Shiplacoff’s swipe up gesture teaches limitation [1j] by including a movement parameter above a movement threshold. Pet. 17–23. Petitioner contends that Shiplacoff teaches that a user can perform another gesture to return to the home screen. Id. at 23. Petitioner contends that when a gesture different from the swipe up gesture is used to return to the home screen, a person of ordinary skill would have used a flicking gesture because the flicking gesture has a different movement parameter than the swipe up gesture, namely, a movement parameter that does not meet the movement threshold. Pet. 23– 24 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 99–102, 167; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–61). We agree with Petitioner for the reasons given in the Petition and as discussed above. We reiterate that using a gesture to return from home screen to launch screen as taught by Shiplacoff, where the gesture is a flicking gesture as taught by Shiplacoff, yields the predictable result of using a flicking gesture to return from home screen to launch screen. Ex. 1023 ¶ 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–61; KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that Shiplacoff teaches away from using the flicking gesture to switch from full screen mode to the launch screen because, according to Patent Owner, Shiplacoff already uses the flick gesture to perform scrolling in full screen mode. PO Resp. 49–52 the same gesture in a given mode can be assigned to different functions depending on where, when, and how the gesture is input by the user, as discussed above. Reply 11–12 (discussing Shiplacoff’s teaching of associating the same tap gesture with different functions depending on where the tap occurs), 13–14 (discussing Duarte’s teaching of associating both a drag gesture and a scrolling gesture to the same mode). Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 16–19. We agree with Petitioner and Dr. Terveen, that based on the teachings of Shiplacoff (and, by incorporation, Duarte), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a flick started in area 102 or near an edge of screen 101 and continuing onto screen 101 would be distinguished from a flick entirely within screen 101 based on location, and would perform a different function. Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 18–19. We also agree with Petitioner and Dr. Terveen, that Duarte teaches associating a gesture with one function when a modifier key is not pressed, and associating the same gesture with a different function when the modifier key is pressed, such that a flick performed when the key is not pressed would perform one function such as scrolling and a flick performed when the key is pressed would perform another, such as changing the display mode. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 64; Ex. 1023 ¶ 20). We agree with Petitioner that Shiplacoff does not teach away from using a flicking gesture to change from full screen mode to home screen because it “does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.” Reply 10 (quoting Depuy Spine, 567 F.3d at1327).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,649,578 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,649,578
• Universal Electronics, Inc. / Gemstar Technology (Qinzhou) Co. Ltd. et al. v. ROKU, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2026 · IPR2022-00818 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claim 11 unpatentable under §103 over Wouters and Verzulli because Wouters’s fixer saves the combined codeset for reinstallation.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “We agree with Petitioner that the above-quoted paragraph of Wouters teaches “combining . . . correct working codes from the scanned remote control code-sets into a new custom configuration code set” using Wouters’s “fixer,” which combines the codes into a custom codeset, gives it a name, such as “user1,” and stores it in a memory (the “RC code set data base”). See Pet. Reply 2; Ex. 1009, 10:18–20. This custom codeset includes a combination of the working codes previously tested and installed by the user. Ex. 1009, 10:18–20. We also find that the above-quoted paragraph of Wouters teaches “installing . . . the combined correct working codes of the new custom configuration code set for use by the remote control.” Specifically, Wouters teaches that, when the remote control’s batteries die, “the user may easily reinstall the chosen code set by choosing ‘user1’ from the proposed list or immediately selecting ‘user1.’” Ex. 1009, 10:20–22 (emphasis added). This reinstallation is of the combined correct working codes of a new custom configuration codeset previously stored and named by the fixer, such as the “user1” codeset. Id. at 10:20–24. We find that Wouters’s “reinstallation” of the chosen code set (e.g., the “user1” codeset) is an “installation” of that codeset. The claim merely recites “installing” the codeset, and does not distinguish between an initial installation and a re-installation, such as after the batteries of the remote control die. Ex. 1001, 10:45. Patent Owner also does not point to anything in the ’875 patent Specification or the other intrinsic evidence that would limit the “installing” in limitation 11[e] to an initial installation, or that would exclude a re-installation after the remote control’s batteries die. Consequently, we find that Wouters’s reinstallation of the codeset after the batteries die is an “install[ation]” as required by limitation 11[e]. We further agree with Petitioner that the Wouters-Verzulli combination discloses that these operations would be performed using a processor and memory, which Patent Owner does not appear to dispute. FWD 52; Pet. 24–27, 37; PO” slip op. at 20

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

    “Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)); see In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the above-quoted paragraph of Wouters teaches “combining . . . correct working codes from the scanned remote control code-sets into a new custom configuration code set” using Wouters’s “fixer,” which combines the codes into a custom codeset, gives it a name, such as “user1,” and stores it in a memory (the “RC code set data base”). See Pet. Reply 2; Ex. 1009, 10:18–20. This custom codeset includes a combination of the working codes previously tested and installed by the user. Ex. 1009, 10:18–20. We also find that the above-quoted paragraph of Wouters teaches “installing . . . the combined correct working codes of the new custom configuration code set for use by the remote control.” Specifically, Wouters teaches that, when the remote control’s batteries die, “the user may easily reinstall the chosen code set by choosing ‘user1’ from the proposed list or immediately selecting ‘user1.’” Ex. 1009, 10:20–22 (emphasis added). This reinstallation is of the combined correct working codes of a new custom configuration codeset previously stored and named by the fixer, such as the “user1” codeset. Id. at 10:20–24. We find that Wouters’s “reinstallation” of the chosen code set (e.g., the “user1” codeset) is an “installation” of that codeset. The claim merely recites “installing” the codeset, and does not distinguish between an initial installation and a re-installation, such as after the batteries of the remote control die. Ex. 1001, 10:45. Patent Owner also does not point to anything in the ’875 patent Specification or the other intrinsic evidence that would limit the “installing” in limitation 11[e] to an initial installation, or that would exclude a re-installation after the remote control’s batteries die. Consequently, we find that Wouters’s reinstallation of the codeset after the batteries die is an “install[ation]” as required by limitation 11[e]. We further agree with Petitioner that the Wouters-Verzulli combination discloses that these operations would be performed using a processor and memory, which Patent Owner does not appear to dispute. FWD 52; Pet. 24–27, 37; PO” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “We also find that Petitioner has not forfeited its argument that Wouters’s fixer and reinstallation functionality satisfies limitation 11[e]. The Petition pointed to Wouters’s “fixer” for limitation 11[e], and cited Dr. Houh’s Declaration specifically identifying and quoting Wouters’s disclosure of reinstallation at page 10, lines 14 through 24. Pet. 35 (quoting Ex. 1009, 10:14–20) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 167); Ex. 1003 ¶ 167 (quoting Ex. 1009, 10:14–24). We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the Petition and its cited evidence (including paragraph 167 of Dr. Houh’s first Declaration) would be apprised that Petitioner was relying on the portion of Wouters describing the “fixer” and reinstallation functionality.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,378,875 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,378,875
• Smaxtec Inc. / Smaxtec Animal Care GmbH v. St Reproductive Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01067 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5–7, 9, and 10 are unpatentable: claims 5 and 6 are anticipated by Harvey and Riskey, claim 7 is obvious over Harvey and Rettedal, and claims 9 and 10 are obvious over Harvey and …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Considering the entire record, we determine that Petitioner “did not make out its obviousness case in its petition” and its arguments on reply “effectively abandoned its petition in favor of a new argument.” Wasica at 1286. To the extent Petitioner asserts the claims would have been obvious over Harvey and Riskey in the Petition, it does so using a merely conclusory statement that “[t]o the extent Patent Owner alleges that either Harvey or Riskey fails to teach any claim element, that element is provided by the other reference.” See Pet. 42; Wasica at 1286. And, as discussed in our Institution Decision, the Petition at a minimum does not explain what reference is the primary versus second reference, and what elements should be combined to reach the claimed invention. See Sisvel, 82 F.4th at 1364. reference to be modified with Riskey’s bolus and data compression. See Pet. Reply 15–17. Rather than explaining how its original petition was correct, Petitioner’s subsequent arguments amount to an entirely new theory of prima facie obviousness absent from the Petition. See Wasica, 853 F.3d at 1286; see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute”). We decline to engage in this new argument. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not met is burden to show that claims 5 and 6 would have been obvious over Harvey and Riskey. G. Asserted Obviousness of Claim 7 over Harvey and Rettedal” slip op. at 54

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Riskey discloses “said sensor signal varies based on a corresponding change in one or more physiological parameters of said ruminant animal” (limitation 5[B]). We find Riskey’s description of temperature sensors to be persuasive evidence on this issue. Riskey discloses sensors for measuring changing animal characteristics, e.g., temperature, over time. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 35, 44; see also id. ¶¶ 75, 76 (detecting temperature changes). We further credit Dr. Young’s testimony that one skilled in the art would understand that generated sensor signals, e.g., temperature, would change over time, whereby the sensor signal varies based on any corresponding change in the ruminant physiological parameter that the signal represents. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 84, 85; see Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“This modest flexibility in the rule that ‘anticipation’ requires that every element of the claims appear in a single reference accommodates the reference; that is, where technological facts are known to those in the field of the invention.”). We consider Dr. Kan’s testimony that Riskey is silent as to details about the sensor signal, but are not persuaded because the testimony appears to contradict Riskey’s disclosure of a bolus including sensors for monitoring changes in animal characteristics, generating animal characteristic messages, i.e., signals, and wirelessly transmitting data corresponding to the monitored characteristics. See Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 170–174; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25, 63, 67, 68, 75–78, 101. Given Riskey’s express description of monitoring animal characteristics over time, we agree with Petitioner’s argument that Riskey discloses that said sensor signal varies based on changes to the animal’s physiological parameters.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of the claimed priority date would have “had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related or equivalent field, and three or more years of experience researching, developing, designing and/or evaluating sensor systems for humans or other animals.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35) (emphasis added). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 19–20). On the entire record, we determine this level of skill, with the exception of the open-ended phrases “at least” and “or more,” which we remove from Petitioner’s proposal, comports with the qualifications a person 5 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We construe claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), i.e., as construed in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Id. at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. Neither party expressly seeks a specific claim construction or definition for any claim term. See Pet. 10; PO Resp. 12. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to interpret claim 7 in view of the Specification, we address that argument in our discussion of claim 7, below. See infra, § III.G.3. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing 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.”)). D. Asserted Anticipation of Claims 5 and 6 by Riskey” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,231,644 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,231,644
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 14, 2026 · IPR2024-01088 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 9, 12, 19–22, 24–32, 36–43, 47, 58, 59, 63, 71, 74, 81–84, 86–94, 97–105, 109, 119–121, and 124 are unpatentable over Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin; claims 35 and 57 are not.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we noted that Petitioner’s definition left it unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition would be considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree,” and did not adopt the portion of the definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for a degree. Dec. on Inst. 9. Additionally we did not adopt Petitioner’s proposed additional requirement that one of ordinary skill “would have possessed extensive background knowledge and understanding of the pertinent technologies employed by the ’758 patent.” Id. We adopted, for the purposes of the Decision on Institution, the portion of the definition proposed by Petitioner requiring “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers” as consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’758 patent and prior art of record and supported by declarant testimony. Cockburn’s testimony regarding it (Ex. 2007, 9:7–23), and, for the same reasons discussed in the Decision on Institution, we adopt it here.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the snapshot menu and pressand-hold gesture of Martyn with Chaudhri as Petitioner proposes, resulting in a device that provides a contextual shortcut sub-menu of common application functions in response to a touch-and-hold user input. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony in Petitioner’s showing that Martyn’s contextual allow the user to accomplish recurring tasks more quickly. Pet. 15–17 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–62, 66–67). Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner provides a showing of a motivation to use, in the resulting combination, both Martyn’s menu and its mechanism for calling the menu. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Ex. 1067 ¶ 21. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s supported testimony of the motivation for the combination Petitioner proposes, using the teachings of Martyn identifying its App Snapshot called through a press-and-hold as allowing a user access to multiple options pertaining to one application at one time in one menu, for ease and speed of navigation. Pet. 15–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61, 63 & n.3, 68 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–8, 15); Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 20, 21. Additionally, we credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony regarding the analogousness of the touch-and-hold mechanism to trigger the menu to the press-and-hold trigger for the menu in Martyn, which Patent Owner criticizes as unsubstantiated (PO Sur-reply 18) but we find to be supported by record evidence. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Reply Br. 17 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 16–22), 20 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 30) ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1022 ¶ 183), 63 & n.3.” slip op. at 18

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

    “at first contending that these limitations require a continuous touch meeting both limitations; however, Patent Owner withdrew the request to construe the claim to require one continuous gesture to meet the two limitations, agreeing with Petitioner’s assertion that either one continuous gesture or two separate gestures could meet the limitations. PO Resp. 15–18; Pet. Reply 3– 5; PO Sur-reply 3–4; Tr. 28:20–29:2. Because we agree with the parties that this is the correct construction, there is no remaining controversy regarding this construction that would require us to decide any claim construction issue. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the snapshot menu and pressand-hold gesture of Martyn with Chaudhri as Petitioner proposes, resulting in a device that provides a contextual shortcut sub-menu of common application functions in response to a touch-and-hold user input. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony in Petitioner’s showing that Martyn’s contextual allow the user to accomplish recurring tasks more quickly. Pet. 15–17 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–62, 66–67). Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner provides a showing of a motivation to use, in the resulting combination, both Martyn’s menu and its mechanism for calling the menu. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Ex. 1067 ¶ 21. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s supported testimony of the motivation for the combination Petitioner proposes, using the teachings of Martyn identifying its App Snapshot called through a press-and-hold as allowing a user access to multiple options pertaining to one application at one time in one menu, for ease and speed of navigation. Pet. 15–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61, 63 & n.3, 68 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–8, 15); Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 20, 21. Additionally, we credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony regarding the analogousness of the touch-and-hold mechanism to trigger the menu to the press-and-hold trigger for the menu in Martyn, which Patent Owner criticizes as unsubstantiated (PO Sur-reply 18) but we find to be supported by record evidence. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Reply Br. 17 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 16–22), 20 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 30) ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1022 ¶ 183), 63 & n.3.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,656,758 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,656,758
• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2025 · IPR2024-01052 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3–6 and 13–16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted Watanabe combinations were unsupported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “cameras.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–38). Petitioner further contends “[a]n advanced graduate degree in the disciplines cited above may make up for the work experience indicated above.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute and applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. PO Resp. 6. We find that Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with the ’832 patent specification and 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). Thus, we apply Petitioner’s proposal in our analysis.” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we construed “determin[ing] a viewing window for the visual content as a function of progress through the progress length” as “requiring determining a viewing window for different times of the video.” Inst. Dec. 21. Neither party disputes this construction. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 1–7. We maintain this same construction.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Thomason are in the same field of endeavor. Thomason describes a camera and method for correctly orientating pictures from the camera. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 2 29–40, Figs. 3a–3b. In particular, Thomason is interested in rotating and cropping images to reduce the effect of poor orientation. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 34, 36). Pacurariu likewise describes aligning and resizing/cropping of a captured image to correct poor orientation. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 3, 45–56, Figs. 5A–5C. The preponderance of the evidence also supports that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the Pacurariu’s teachings with Thomason to predictably improve Thomason. Thomason teaches correct rotation of video data and makes use of rotation sensor to correct rotated images. Pet. 19–21 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 27, 29, 35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–77). Pacurariu similarly uses sensors and measures tilt angle of the camera. Id at 21–22 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51–52, Fig. 6; Ex. 1002 ¶ 78). Pacurariu further teaches that its tilt data angle can be stored for each “video frame.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 52). Petitioner, with support from credible testimony of Dr. Katsaggelos, explains how the teachings of Thomason and Pacurariu could be successfully combined. Id. at 23 (citing, for example, Ex. 1002 ¶ 81). A person of ordinary skill in the art could have known that Thomason’s system could be improved by saving rotation data for each video frame and correcting images on a frame-by-frame basis. Id. at 23–24. The testimony of Dr. Katsaggelos is credible in this regard. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81. Petitioner and Dr. Katsaggelos explain the references’ teachings and, based on these teachings, assert that a person having skill in the art would have had reason to combine with reasonable expectation of success based on those teachings. Reason to combine may properly come from the references themselves. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (explaining reason to combine may come from “interrelated teachings of multiple patents”). Based on the evidence presented, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Thomason and Pacurariu with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–81, 89–92; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 8–9, 27, 29, 35; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26, 41, 46, 51–52, 55–57, Figs. 6, 7.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner

    “evaluating nexus between the claimed invention and objective evidence of nonobviousness, also referred to as secondary considerations. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 at 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential). We first consider whether Patent Owner has demonstrated “that its products are coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims,” resulting in a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Id. at 33. If not, that “does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. (quoting Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75).” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 11,336,832 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,336,832
• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00984 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable as obvious over Meulen and Chao; claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because Meulen does not disclose transforming an image captured by its camera.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science, or equivalent field, and two years of experience working on image or video processing, or digital cameras,” or alternatively “would have four years of experience working on image or video processing, or digital cameras.” Pet. 6. Petitioner further argues that an “advanced graduate degree” may “make up for the work experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” PO Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 19–20). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’413 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “From the outset we note that the words of the claim recite “non- uniformly shift[ing] the pixels” and do not recite a “non-linear” transformation. This favors Petitioner’s position, which is based directly off the definition of “non-uniform,” over Patent Owner’s position, which substitutes “non-linear” for “non-uniform.” Generally, then, we would determine the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term in the context of the entire Specification. Here, however, the ʼ413 patent does not mention “uniform” or “non-uniform” shifting of pixels anywhere except in the claims. The Specification, therefore, provides limited guidance, by itself, as to the ordinary and customary meaning of the term. Nonetheless, even reviewing the portions of the Specification cited by the parties, we see no clear or unambiguous effort to limit the challenged claims to require only non-linear transformations in which the pixels to which a transformation is applied do not have the same amount of shift. is not non-linear. Pet. Reply 1. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the center circle of Figure 2B maintains the original circular shape after the transformation is applied to the image which contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that no two pixels will have the same amount of shift. Pet. Reply 1–2. We agree. In Figure 2B of the ʼ413 patent, the center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest. Ex. 1001, 4:19–21. After the input image goes through linear scaling (step 204) and then non-linear warping (step 206) the circles become more vertically compressed as they approach the top and bottom edges and more horizontally stretched as they approach the left and right edges. Id. at 4:22–30. But “the center circle is fully corrected so that it maintains the original circular shape of the corresponding circle in the input image 212.” Id. at 4:23–25. This means that at least some pixels, such as those of the center circle, undergo the same amount of shift after being transformed.” slip op. at 11

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

    “readable instructions” of claims 1 and 2 must occur in a particular order. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the step of “determine a portion within the input image” must occur after “obtain[ing] an image” and before “apply[ing] a transformation to the input image.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 59). Petitioner argues, on the other hand, that the specification does not require such an order and, in fact, describes an embodiment where such an order is not followed. Pet. 3. We determine that the “determine a portion within the input image” step does not need to occur after the “obtain an image” step and before the “apply a transformation to the input image” step. As Patent Owner itself points out, claims 1 and 2 are apparatus and system claims respectively, and an ordering of the limitations of such claims is not necessary. PO Resp. 17. Even if we were to treat the apparatus and system claims as reciting the steps of a method, “as a general rule the claim is not limited to performance of the steps in the order recited, unless the claim explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order.” Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). We see nothing in the claims that would cause us to break this general rule. Patent Owner argues that the claims imply a “specific order because the ‘determine a portion’ requirement operates on ‘the [obtained] input image’ and defines the ‘portion’ that is necessary for the 23; Ex. 2027 ¶ 59). Although the steps are recited in a specific order in the claim, as they necessarily must be, the claim does not expressly specify that the certain steps must occur before or after other instructions, nor does logic imply such a requirement. For example, if certain characteristics of the image are known before the image is obtained (e.g. the size, dimensions, resolution, aspect ratio, or content etc.) the determination of the portion of the image could be made before the image is obtained. These characteristics may be based on the specific device taking the image or the subject matter of the image, both of which may be known before the image is captured or obtained. It is, therefore, not necessary that the image be obtained in order for a portion of the image to be determined. Similarly, we do not find the written description to expressly or implicitly specify an order the claimed step of “determine a portion of the input image.” For example, the written description of the ʼ413 patent states that in Figure 2B “the center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest that is most fully corrected and the distortion increases in each direction as the frame boundary is approached.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–22. Patent Owner emphasizes that this disclosure implies that an input image is obtained before the center portion is chosen. PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:63–64, 4:19–22). But the description of this embodiment does not expressly recite an order. For example, the description of Figure 2A explains that “an input image is obtained” in step 202, “the image is then scaled” in step 204, and a “non-linear warping is then applied” in step 206. Ex. 1001, 3:63–4:3. This description does not mention “determin[ing] of a portion of the image” as a separate step or as part of the listed steps, and therefore, does not specify an order in which this step must occur. is configured so that some areas of the image are fully corrected geometrically, while some other areas are distorted. . . . [T]he center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest that is most fully corrected and the distortion increases in each direction.” Id. at 4:17–19. This excerpt from the ʼ413 patent, which the Patent Owner specifically relies on (PO Resp. 19), also does not specify an order in which the determination step (choosing of the region of interest) takes place. Moreover, because the ʼ413 patent states that the warp module is configured so that some areas are fully corrected while others are not, the determination step could take place at the time the warp module was configured, presumably before the image was obtained. Finally, the ʼ413 patent states that “in the case, of video, the area may dynamically change between images (e.g. to follow a moving object).” Ex. 1001, 4:34–36. Patent Owner argues that this description “requires first obtaining the image in order to locate the object that is being followed.” PO Resp. 19–20. This embodiment is related to the case of video or a moving object, which the challenged claims do not mention. We, therefore, decline to limit the scope of the claim based on this embodiment. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and cited evidence we determine Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Meulen and Chao. For example, Petitioner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious that when performing image scaling, pixels from the input to output positions are shifted based on a scaling factor.” Pet. 91. Meulen teaches scaling but does not provide the details regarding scaling. E.g., Ex. 1007, 1:55–56, 4:37–49. We agree that in light of Meulen’s disclosure of scaling, a POSITA would have looked to other references, such as Chao, for further details on how to perform scaling. Dr. Katsaggelos provides credible support, testifying that “Meulen mentions ‘compression and/or scaling,’ and provides details on how to perform compression. But Meulen does not disclose the details of how to perform scaling. A POSITA when faced with Meulen and having the knowledge about scaling would have been motivated to turn to a prior art reference that discloses the details of scaling.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 262. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner provides no motivation to combine other than asserting that it involves combining prior art elements. PO Resp. 35 (quoting Pet. 92). As explained above, however, Petitioner does more than just assert that the motivation involves combining prior art elements. Instead, Petitioner explains that Meulen discusses both compression and scaling, and provides details regarding compression but does not provide details on how to scale. Pet. 91–92; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 262–262. Thus, Meulen teaches that scaling was a known technique. See Hybritech, (“a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art”). Dr. Katsaggelos testifies that, in this situation, a POSITA would have looked to Chao for details regarding scaling. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 262–263. We determine this establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSITA would have had reason to combine Meulen’s teachings with Chao. Patent Owner draws a distinction between Meulen and Chao, arguing that “Meulen is concerned with modifying content from a media source to be displayed on a device’s screen while Chao, by contrast, is directed to changing the aspect ratio of a document intended for printing.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 89–90). Patent Owner’s argument is contradicted, however, by Chao’s disclosure which states that “after all the background and foreground elements in the image have been resized . . . [t]he image may be output by displaying the image on or as part of: a display screen such as a computer monitor, camera screen, printer screen, printed page, projected image, or the like.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 32. Patent Owner argues that Meulen’s system avoids distortion near the middle where the user’s focus is more likely to be, while Chao, on the other hand, is directed to avoiding distortion of stylized borders on differently sized pages. PO Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:26–29; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1, 25; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 91–92). This argument reads the prior art too narrowly and does not address Petitioner’s combination. Petitioner does not rely on Chao for its teaching of avoiding distortion near the borders of the image, but rather on its teaching of scaling the image while maintaining the design intent of the original image. Ex. 1008 ¶ 22; Ex. 1014 ¶ 67. Thus, Petitioner is applying Chao’s techniques of scaling (regardless of where the area of 92. Finally, Patent Owner argues that Chao’s approach of stretching/shrinking only the background and uniformly scaling entire foreground objects is suitable for graphic design but incompatible with Meulen which is concerned with adapting externally derived media source content for display on a fixed size screen. PO Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 93). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because it does not address Petitioner’s combination. Petitioner relies on Chao’s teaching of stretching/shrinking of background elements and applies that stretching/shrinking to Meulen’s images displayed on its screen. Pet. 91–92 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 28, 63; Ex. 1002 ¶ 263). The fact that Chao applies its teaching to graphic design does not prevent a POSITA from applying those teachings to Meulen’s media content displayed on its screen.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,015,413 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,015,413
• Smaxtec Inc. / Smaxtec Animal Care GmbH v. St Reproductive Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00875 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, and 17–20 are unpatentable under the Trevarthen and Laitinen-based obviousness grounds; claim 6 was not shown unpatentable over Trevarthen alone.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “statistics in the absence of evidence of unique downloads or individuals. Even if the download numbers do not exactly represent unique downloads by unique individuals, the evidence shows that Trevarthen was downloaded to some extent, and therefore distributed, prior to the filing date of the ’206 patent. Accordingly, we find this evidence weighs in favor of Trevarthen’s public accessibility.” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “construction issues: (1) the interpretation of limitations 1[E] and 17[F] relating to entering sensed and stored information into “at least one logical expression,” and (2) “implanted in an animal.” Inst. Dec. 19. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to combine sensed and stored information into the same “at least one logical expression,” for the reasons set forth below. Accordingly, we need not construe limitations 1[E] and 17[F], relating to “at least one logical expression.”4 We discuss our construction of “implanted in an animal” below.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “would have viewed Trevarthen as a cohesive disclosure of specific improvements to existing dairy farms, as opposed to disparate teachings of unrelated systems. Trevarthen itself proposes “a framework for the use of RFID on dairy farms” including “enhancements and ideas which could be considered as future additions to further add value” for utilizing RFIDs in farm management beyond the Cochrane farm ear-tag RFIDs. Ex. 1005, 99. The enhancements include RFID boluses (id.), milk meters to detect illness (id. at 115), and temperature monitoring by RFID (id. at 121–122). Considering the entire record, Trevarthen itself describes improvements that apply “the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown a that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to” slip op. at 33

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “IV. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1040, 1041, and 1044.” slip op. at 81

  Patent outcomesUS 9,844,206 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,844,206

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.