• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2022-00182 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under § 103 over Buruganahalli; the evidence of copying does not outweigh the strong obviousness showing.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Scope on Remand On remand, the panel here will not address issues outside the scope of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., 814 F. App’x 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board is bound by the terms of a mandate issued by an appellate court. Aydin Corp. v. Widnall, 121 F.3d 726, 1997 WL 413329, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ‘Unless remanded by [an appellate] court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.’ Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”). The sole issue on remand is whether “the evidence of copying” is sufficient to overcome the obviousness ground of unpatentability over Buruganahalli. Centripetal Networks, 19–20. We restate portions of the former Final Written Decision, as an aid to the reader, but substantially incorporate the analysis of the prior Decision below. C.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentable

    “given to the Eastern District of Virginia court’s opinion because it was later vacated. The district court considered all of the Read factors (applying Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826-827 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), of which only the first factor is directed to deliberate copying, although factors 2 and 9 bear indirectly on the issue of copying. The district court determined that “[t]he fact that Cisco released products with Centripetal’s functionality within a year of these meetings goes beyond mere coincidence. Therefore, the fact that Cisco’s system mirrors the functionality of the Centripetal patents is compelling evidence that damages should be enhanced for copying.” Ex. 1027, 157. Without more, it is difficult to evaluate the processes that the district court employed to reach its determination. As the Federal Circuit instructed, we need “not [] go searching throughout the entire litigation record to find the evidence of copying, but [we have] an obligation to consider the specific evidence that was put before” us. Centripetal Networks, 19. We continue to determine that the vacated finding of the district court should be provided little weight, especially in view of the strong case of obviousness discussed above. Examination of Aaron Striegel We also do not find the Aaron Striegel’s testimony to be particularly persuasive. The testimony provides statements such as “I found evidence that it could be plausible,” “[s]o we can see the timeline is very plausible,” and “I found it very plausible that indeed that this technology could have made its way into these respective accused products.” Ex. 1029, 31:12–32:3. This testimony suggests the possibility of copying but does not demonstrate actual evidence of copying. At most, this testimony indicates that further consideration of the underlying evidence is warranted, but does little to support an ultimate finding of copying. Again, even taking this testimony as evidence of copying, it still must stand up against the strong case of obviousness discussed above.” slip op. at 40

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

    “The District Court did not provide an element-by-element analysis of how the claims of the ‘856 Patent cover this description. See Ex. 1027, 41. However, from the description, we understand the Court to have concluded that the system receives rules, identifies a set of packets as part of a flow using the NetFlow logs, “determines” that encrypted packets in the flow match known malicious signatures based on unencrypted data in other packets (e.g., data in the SNI), and then filters the flow based in a URI (e.g., that from the SNI), routing it to the null interface. The Court does not describe how the system “determines” that encrypted packets match known malicious signatures based on information in unencrypted packets, but we assume that is done as in the ‘856 Patent, by correlation, i.e., an encrypted packet is “determined” to match a threat indicator if it is in the same flow as a packet with unencrypted information that matches the threat indicator.10 With that understanding, we conclude that the allegedly infringing system operates, as least at the level described in the court’s decision, in the same way Buruganahalli’s system operates, filtering encrypted packets due to their presence in a flow that includes packets with unencrypted data, such as in a handshaking packet. It follows that Patent Owner is unable to establish a nexus, because “[w]here the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1330” slip op. at 38

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersDecided for petitioner

    “need and industry recognition for the technology claimed in the ‘856 Patent because it describes the problem of detecting threats in encrypted traffic as ‘unsolvable.’” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 1027, 64). Given that this is a press release by a company announcing that company’s new commercial product, however, we 8 The concurrence reevaluates Patent Owner’s evidence of industry praise and nexus, but we deem such considerations outside the remit of the Federal Circuit’s remand. are reluctant to give the “unsolvable” characterization much weight, as it may amount to puffery. But beyond that, it appears that the problem identified as “unsolvable” in the press release––“detect[ing] known attack signatures even in encrypted traffic”––had, in fact, already been solved in Buruganahalli, using the very same hello message, flow correlation, and man-in-the-middle techniques described in the ‘856 Patent. We thus cannot say that the press release identifies a long-felt need that was actually unsolved. See ZUP, 896 F.3d at 1374 (explaining that “[w]here the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention are . . . minimal . . . it cannot be said that any long-felt need was unsolved”) (quoting Geo. M. Martin Co. v. All. Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (first alteration in original)).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,917,856
• Biofrontera Inc. / Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01312 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 16, 17, and 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Lundahl and Larsen; Ground 2 was conceded, and the motion to exclude was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not provided a valid justification for requiring a POSITA to have both an engineering degree and a medical degree. Prelim. Resp. 22. We agree, insofar as Petitioner has not clearly set out any particular explanation or evidence in support of its dual-degree requirement. In all other respects, we note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar. Because we determine that Patent Owner’s proposed definition is reasonable and consistent with the ’028 patent and the cited art, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition. In any event, our Decision does not turn on this level of skill determination. B.” slip op. at 12

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

    “device “[f]or the treatment of large-area tissues,” such as the backs of human patients, wherein several applicators 13 are “flexibly connected to each other through hinges.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 72). Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have been motivated “to incorporate Larsen’s solution of connecting light applicators by hinges, to allow for adjustability of Lundahl’s device to provide the desired irradiance and irradiance uniformity to all target areas during PDT.” Id. (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 127). According to Petitioner, a “POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Lundahl with Larsen, because both references describe similar illuminators for using light to treat conditions on a patient’s skin.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 128). Petitioner’s proposed modification of Lundahl also involves using LEDs as a light source instead of Lundahl’s fluorescent tubes. Id. According to Petitioner, a POSITA would have been motivated to make this change because: (1) LEDs had a lower cost and a longer lifetime than fluorescent tubes; (2) fluorescent tubes were known to have inconsistent light output within the tube itself; and (3) “the use of LEDs would be more practical to reduce spacing between light sources and the edges of the panels, as opposed to the bulky metal couplings at the end of fluorescent tubes, to reduce optical dead space across the light surface.” Id. (citing Ex. 1014, 4:41–42, 6:31–42; Ex. 1015 ¶ 129). Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification because Lundahl and Larsen “describe similar illuminators and the conversion from fluorescent tubes to LEDs was a routine practice prior to 2015.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 131). Patent Owner does not meaningfully dispute the Petitioner’s proposed reasons to combine Lundahl and Larsen. See generally PO Resp. To the extent Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would not have been motivated to make the combination because it would negatively affecting uniform illumination (PO Resp. 24), the motivating benefit here—using adjustable LED panels instead of monolith fluorescent tubes—outweighs the alleged disadvantages for the many reasons given by Petitioner, including greater adjustability and improved LED performance. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify.”); Reply 14. We are persuaded that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Lundahl and Larsen for the reasons advanced by Petitioner.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner’s reasoning (i.e., that it would have been obvious to try placing the hinges on the inner side surfaces) is unsupported and conclusory. PO Reps. 53–54. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to identify a single prior art reference showing hinged structures on inner side surfaces. Id. This argument ignores that Larsen expressly identifies hinges on at least bottom side surfaces, and Petitioner merely proposes modifying their location from the bottom sides to inner sides. We find credible Dr. Grove’s testimony that relocating hinges would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1015 ¶ 155. Dr. Jokerst testifies that a POSITA would have been discouraged from placing hinges between Larsen’s adjustable applicators, because the hinges would create gaps that interfere with uniform illumination as well as the panels’ wiring, and create issues with the use and alignment of the panels. Ex. 2050 ¶ 175. However, a system with discrete panels connected by hinges (like in Larsen) will already have wiring, use and alignment technical challenges, regardless of the location of the hinges— the expected consequence of connecting multiple movable electronic panels. Moreover, the ’028 patent acknowledges in its discussion of conventional illuminators that placing hinges between panels was already known. Ex. 1001, 2:7–15. With respect to Dr. Jokerst’s opinion that the hinges would create gaps negatively affecting uniform illumination, we are persuaded that it would have been within the skill of a POSITA to locate the hinges on the inside surfaces “in a nearly flush arrangement,” such that the gaps would be minimized. Id.; Ex. 1015 ¶ 155. We also credit Dr. Grove’s supplemental testimony on this issue, directly refuting Dr. Jokerst’s testimony regarding gaps and uniform illumination (and therefore within the proper scope of reply, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument otherwise (Mot. 9). See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 17–20 (explaining LED light divergence and that the physical space caused by hinges “is easily addressed” to maintain uniform illumination).9 We further point out that the ’028 patent also suggests that gaps do” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Jokerst testifies that a POSITA would have been discouraged from placing hinges between Larsen’s adjustable applicators, because the hinges would create gaps that interfere with uniform illumination as well as the panels’ wiring, and create issues with the use and alignment of the panels. Ex. 2050 ¶ 175. However, a system with discrete panels connected by hinges (like in Larsen) will already have wiring, use and alignment technical challenges, regardless of the location of the hinges— the expected consequence of connecting multiple movable electronic panels. Moreover, the ’028 patent acknowledges in its discussion of conventional illuminators that placing hinges between panels was already known. Ex. 1001, 2:7–15. With respect to Dr. Jokerst’s opinion that the hinges would create gaps negatively affecting uniform illumination, we are persuaded that it would have been within the skill of a POSITA to locate the hinges on the inside surfaces “in a nearly flush arrangement,” such that the gaps would be minimized. Id.; Ex. 1015 ¶ 155. We also credit Dr. Grove’s supplemental testimony on this issue, directly refuting Dr. Jokerst’s testimony regarding gaps and uniform illumination (and therefore within the proper scope of reply, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument otherwise (Mot. 9). See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 17–20 (explaining LED light divergence and that the physical space caused by hinges “is easily addressed” to maintain uniform illumination).9” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 11,697,028 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,697,028
• Caption Health, Inc v. University Of British ColumbiaInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-01066 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, including failure to show the claimed image-receiving quality-assessment neural network.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’591 patent. Thus, we do not institute this inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Because Petitioner’s formulation is supported by declaratory testimony and appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art and the ’591 patent, and because Patent Owner does not provide any supporting evidence, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–33. Our decision would be the same regardless of the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s formulations.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The parties do not propose any express claim construction. Pet. 11– 12; Prelim Resp. 17. We also determine that no express claim construction is necessary for our Decision, apart from that discussed in our below analysis. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms in controversy must be construed “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner also fails to provide sufficient rationale and a reasonable expectation of success in combining Krishnan and Lee to arrive at a quality assessment neural network configured to receive an image. See Pet. 34–37. For example, the Petition lacks an explanation of why a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Krishnan’s quality assessment neural network to be configured to receive an image, instead of extracted features, in view of Lee’s image-receiving category classifying neural network. Id. Without such further explanation, Petitioner’s challenge falls short. Petitioner’s argument that neural networks for image quality assessment were “well-known” is not persuasive—it does not address the particular scope of limitation 1i, which also requires that the neural network is configured to receive images. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 47–51, 118; Exs. 1017, 1023, 1024, 1026). Petitioner’s argument that combining Krishnan and Lee “would merely amount to applying known work from the field . . . to yield predictable results” is not persuasive because the Petition ties this reasoning to modifying Krishnan with Lee’s view-category-specific assessment parameters, not modifying Krishnan’s quality assessment neural network to receive images instead of extracted features. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 126). Lastly, we note Petitioner’s expert’s discussion regarding neural networks for image quality assessments. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 43–53 (citing Exs. 1010, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1023, 1024, 1026). However, the Petition does not explain how this evidence demonstrates that the proposed combination teaches or suggests a quality assessment neural network configured to receive images, or that such would have been obvious in the context of the claimed invention. See Pet. 32–37.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,129,591
• AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. Daingean Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00402 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s revised non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 1–4 and substituting claims 7 and 8, which Petitioner did not prove unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). A “patent owner bears the burden of persuasion to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the motion to amend complies” with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(d)(1). Specifically, a patent owner must demonstrate the following: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (3) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent; and (4) the amendment does not introduce new matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)–(b). For the reasons explained below, Patent Owner satisfies its burden of persuasion to show that the amendments comply with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties rely on expert testimony for their respective positions relating to the number of years of experience needed to attain ordinary skill, but neither expert cites supporting evidence for their testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 33; Ex. 2002 ¶ 15. Our decision is the same regardless of whether the length of experience is two years or three. We find Patent Owner’s proposed “wireless communications” is more consistent with the ’958 patent than Petitioner’s proposed “telecommunication,” which encompasses a variety of technologies including, e.g., landline and wireless telephones, cable, and satellite. See Ex. 1001, 1:11–62 (describing the invention in terms of wireless communications). Accordingly, we adopt a modified version of Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, substituting “wireless communications” for “telecommunication.” Neither party, moreover, indicates the overall result would change based on a different definition.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the recited second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. The plain meaning of “first type” and “second type” indicates that the first type and second type are different in kind. RMTA 22 (App. A). Our interpretation is consistent with the Specification, which explains that second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. As Patent Owner points out, the ’958 patent discloses “first type of system information (1TYP SIB) is . . . essential . . . for initial system access” and “second type of system information (2TYP SIB) is nonessential system information . . . defined as all other types of information, and thus excludes the [] information required for initial access.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:34– 46); see also Ex. 1001, Abstract (interchangeably using the terms second type and non-essential). Despite Petitioner’s argument that this disclosure is non-limiting and directed to a disclaimed example embodiment (Opp. 8–9), Petitioner could not identify any embodiment, among the approximately forty disclosed embodiments, describing something other than the first type SIB being essential information and the second type SIB being non-essential information. Tr. 22:18–26. Even the Petition acknowledges that “the ’958 Patent further classifies a second type of system information, the ‘non-essential’ SI, which is defined as all other types of information excluding that first type of information required for initial access.” Pet. 5. Furthermore, the prior art of record suggests that a person of ordinary skill would have understood second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 48 (describing two categories of system information, “essential SI” and “Other SI”). Patent Owner’s expert also understood the recited first and second type SIBs as being mutually exclusive. See Ex. 1011, 49:10–13. For the above reasons, we do not agree with Petitioner that the recited second type SIB lacks any requirements, nor do we interpret claims 7 and 8 such that the first type SIB could be a second type SIB.” slip op. at 19

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

    “(d) Limitation 7h: Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments with respect to limitation 7h are insufficient because they fail to address the limitation as written and improperly incorporate previous arguments by reference. For example, Petitioner did not map the recited “group identifier” when opposing Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend. See Opp. 16–17. In its Sur-reply, Petitioner contends that limitation 7h’s requirement of transmitting the group identifier was previously “set out in Patent Owner’s prior papers,” but does not refer to any specific papers or exhibits. Pet. Surreply 11–12. We decline to search for and piece together Petitioner’s arguments and evidence to develop a persuasive theory of unpatentability. See 37 C.F.R. section 42.6(a)(3). Petitioner similarly failed to address adequately where Lee discloses or suggests the recited “compressed format” and “plural parameters.” See Opp. 16–17. Aside from the above concerns, we also do not see sufficient explanation with respect to limitation 7h’s requirement that the transmitting by broadcast be based on a comparison of the value tag. Petitioner argues that, because Patent Owner does not dispute limitation 7g, “it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the same value tag[] to determine the system information broadcast in Lee’s compressed format embodiment.” Pet. Sur-reply 12. This conclusory statement is not supported by any citations to evidence and was improperly introduced in the Sur-reply. Moreover, whether it was obvious to determine what system information is broadcast is not commensurate with the claim scope because limitation 7h requires that the broadcasting (not the broadcast content) be based on a comparison of the value tag. See supra III.B.4 and IV.B. Further, we are not persuaded that Lee’s transmitting by broadcast is” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,841,958 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,841,958
• Apple Inc. v. DH International Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00173 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–13 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 371 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim in the ’333 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of the ’333 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. We adopt the parties’ agreed level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the description in the ’333 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “element” (limitation [1(e)]) onto a McGregor “device” placed in an RF field generated by Palmer’s reader/writer device. Pet. 28–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105), 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–127). The Petition is unclear as to which McGregor device is being referenced, e.g., the smart card of Figure 2, the wallet embodiment of Figure 4, or some combination of embodiments disclosed in McGregor and Palmer. Id. Regardless, the proposed modification of McGregor in view of Palmer, as we understand it, is based on conclusory reasoning and appears to be motivated by hindsight rather than the teachings of the applied references. Prelim. Resp. 38–40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 97–102). 7 Ground 2 challenges independent claim 11 for asserted obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle. The Petition’s reliance on Tuttle for its teaching of distinct data transmitter, data receiver, and cue receiver ports does not alter our analysis for claim 11. Pet. 55–62. POSITA would have understood that a series of instructions would be programmed into McGregor’s microprocessor to function as a switching element (pursuant to Palmer’s teachings), and as described.in the ’333 Patent. See Claim [1(b)]; see ’333 Patent, 6:9-14. Accordingly, McGregor’s microprocessor is a switching element (1) that is placed into an activated state after receiving a handshake signal (an activation cue) that establishes a communication during the handshake process and (2) that remains in an inactivated state if no reader/writer device is detected (no activation cue). Ex. 1003 ¶ 127 (emphases added). Dr. Buehrer’s citation to the ’333 patent, without explaining his mapping of limitation [1(e)] onto McGregor-Palmer beyond a general reference to 10-plus pages of limitation [1(b)] “control device” analysis, suggests hindsight reasoning. Id; see also Pet. 42 (generally referring to limitation [1(b)]). The Petition’s analysis, moreover, does not address why or how McGregor’s microprocessor would “accordingly” act as a data conveyance switching element or why a POSITA would want to program McGregor’s microprocessor to execute such a switching function in view of Palmer. We find the Petition and Dr. Buehrer’s testimony lacking in articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings sufficient to support the conclusion that limitation [1(e)] reads on the proposed McGregor-Palmer combination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 16

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

    “element” (limitation [1(e)]) onto a McGregor “device” placed in an RF field generated by Palmer’s reader/writer device. Pet. 28–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105), 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–127). The Petition is unclear as to which McGregor device is being referenced, e.g., the smart card of Figure 2, the wallet embodiment of Figure 4, or some combination of embodiments disclosed in McGregor and Palmer. Id. Regardless, the proposed modification of McGregor in view of Palmer, as we understand it, is based on conclusory reasoning and appears to be motivated by hindsight rather than the teachings of the applied references. Prelim. Resp. 38–40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 97–102). 7 Ground 2 challenges independent claim 11 for asserted obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle. The Petition’s reliance on Tuttle for its teaching of distinct data transmitter, data receiver, and cue receiver ports does not alter our analysis for claim 11. Pet. 55–62. POSITA would have understood that a series of instructions would be programmed into McGregor’s microprocessor to function as a switching element (pursuant to Palmer’s teachings), and as described.in the ’333 Patent. See Claim [1(b)]; see ’333 Patent, 6:9-14. Accordingly, McGregor’s microprocessor is a switching element (1) that is placed into an activated state after receiving a handshake signal (an activation cue) that establishes a communication during the handshake process and (2) that remains in an inactivated state if no reader/writer device is detected (no activation cue). Ex. 1003 ¶ 127 (emphases added). Dr. Buehrer’s citation to the ’333 patent, without explaining his mapping of limitation [1(e)] onto McGregor-Palmer beyond a general reference to 10-plus pages of limitation [1(b)] “control device” analysis, suggests hindsight reasoning. Id; see also Pet. 42 (generally referring to limitation [1(b)]). The Petition’s analysis, moreover, does not address why or how McGregor’s microprocessor would “accordingly” act as a data conveyance switching element or why a POSITA would want to program McGregor’s microprocessor to execute such a switching function in view of Palmer. We find the Petition and Dr. Buehrer’s testimony lacking in articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings sufficient to support the conclusion that limitation [1(e)] reads on the proposed McGregor-Palmer combination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). The Petition does assert an obviousness theory within the analysis of the “control device” limitation [1(b)]. Pet. 25–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85– 109). The Petition asserts that a “POSITA would have been motivated to implement McGregor’s device pursuant to Palmer such that the security code would be automatically transmitted when the device detects the receive the security code.” Pet. 28; see also id. at 31 (“A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Palmer’s (1) RF field detection and handshake processes and (2) Palmer’s transceiver hardware in McGregor’s device.”) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105). We find the Petition’s obviousness theory to be inherently inconsistent and non-specific with regard to the “data conveyance switching element” recited in limitation [1(e)].” slip op. at 16

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,628,333
• Inergy Technology, Inc. v. Force Mos Technology Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00093 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 were not proven unpatentable because the asserted references did not establish the claimed epitaxial layer or the required coverage of the trench sidewalls.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner defines a person of ordinary skill in the art as having “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, and at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design and manufacturing.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37, 57). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 6. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is supported by unopposed declaration testimony and appears to be consistent with the disclosures of the ’634 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Ex. 1001, 1:6–2:33 (describing the invention and related art in terms of integrated circuit design and fabrication); see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1–6 (Hirler); Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1–37 (Kobayashi); Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 2–29 (Shiraishi). Neither party, moreover, indicates the overall result would change based on a different definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner argues that “the sidewalls of said trenches in said base layer are covered” should be construed to mean that “the entire sidewalls of” those trenches are covered. Pet. 18–19. We refer to this as “the sidewall limitation.” Petitioner shows persuasively that the disclosure and file history of the ’634 patent support its position on the sidewall limitation. Id. Patent Owner, for its part, observes that, after the filing of the Petition. two District Courts adopted the construction proposed by Petitioner.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2010, 6–9; Ex. 2011, 23). Patent Owner also agrees to apply Petitioner’s construction for purposes of this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that an express construction of the sidewall limitation is necessary to this Decision, id., and adopt Petitioner’s undisputed definition because it is supported by the record. No other claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “On this record, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that any claim is unpatentable under any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9 of the ’634 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 34

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Alternatively, even if we set aside that timing issue, Dr. Liu’s bare opinion, advanced for the first time during cross-examination, that an epitaxial layer is “obvious” from Hirler’s disclosure is inadequate to support the challenges. Id. at 24–25. We accord little weight to Dr. Liu’s opinion because it is conclusory. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential). In any event, Petitioner does not meet, on this record, the “high standard” required to establish an inherent disclosure of an epitaxial layer in Hirler. PO Resp. 24.6 Dr. Liu opined for the first time during cross-examination “that it would have been impossible to create Hirler’s more lightly doped n- drift zone layer on top of its more heavily doped n+ substrate layer other than via epitaxy.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 2014, 164:16– 165:20). But Patent Owner effectively refutes that proposition with evidence that such a layer “could be created by counter-doping,” even if, as Dr. Liu contends, counter-doping may have been less ideal due to “disadvantageous mobility.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 133; Ex. 2014, 166:15–167:8).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,629,634 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,629,634
• Apple Inc. v. S.M.R Innovations Ltd And Y.M.R Tech LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01047 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, deny Petitioner’s request to institute inter partes review of the challenged claims on the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. 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). Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is similar to Petitioner’s definition with some variation in the amount of education and specificity as to the experience required. 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. We note, however, that our determination in this proceeding would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner “applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” and does not propose construction of any claim term. Pet. 4. Patent Owner also does not propose construction of any claim term. See generally, Prelim. Resp. Based on the record before us, we see no need for express construction of any term for the purposes of this Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “feature of scanning a wireless communication network by the mobile device receiving the streaming data for re-routing, to identify devices connected to the wireless network, are identified as capable to handle the routed media content.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1002, 237–238). Thus, we understand the recited language to require scanning to find devices that have been identified as compatible, not just scanning to find devices and later determining which of those devices, if any, are compatible. Zhang, on the other hand, scans to find devices in the network, but that scan does not seek out devices identified as compatible. Specifically, Zhang scans to find its “helper environment” which is composed of “devices around them.” Ex. 1004, code (57); see also id. 2:16–20. The first step of Zhang’s process is to find “a local device [that] offers helper service.” Id. at 3:62–63. In the next step, Zhang then interrogates the device it scanned for in order to find out whether that device offers the necessary service. Id. at 3:63–4:5. In other words, Zhang is not scanning for compatible devices, but rather it is scanning for any device around it and then asking whether the device provides the necessary service. We find this to be insufficient because the claim is not merely seeking to identify a compatible device, but rather it is scanning “to identify a plurality of devices, identified as compatible to handle said media content.” Thus, for these claims it is not enough that the network be scanned for devices; instead, the network must be scanned for devices “identified as compatible.” The inclusion of Rofheart does not address this issue. Rofheart is relied upon to teach “that a local device identifies and connects with a plurality of remote devices.” Pet. 29. According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Rofheart’s teaching to improve Zhang by adding “the benefit of providing users control to select one or more of a plurality of devices, rather than always connecting to the first identified available compatible device, as taught by Zhang.” Id. As such, neither of the cited references addresses the recited scanning for devices identified as compatible.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,699,223
• Apple Inc. v. S.M.R. Innovations Ltd And Y.M.R. Tech LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01050 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 9, and 24 would have been obvious over the asserted references.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Considering the above principles, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged claims would have been obvious over Chihara, BluetoothSpec, Everett, and Chang, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent owner contends that a person of ordinary skill “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or a related field in computing technology, and at least two years’ experience in wireless communication and mobile devices including multimedia streaming, or equivalent education, research, experience, and knowledge.” Prelim. Resp. 2–3. In other words, Patent Owner argues that the person of ordinary skill would have had less education and more specific experience with mobile devices, including multimedia streaming, than Petitioner proposes. Because Petitioner’s argument is supported by declaratory testimony, and Patent Owner does not provide supporting evidence for its argument, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1003, ¶ 29 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:16–20, 4:18–55, 11:61–12:11).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “Although Petitioner doesn’t promote it in its Petition, we agree with Petitioner’s undisputed contention that the ordinary and customary meaning of the “announcer device” limitation is that the “mobile communication device is receiving rerouted data from surrounding equipment, rather than rerouting data to surrounding equipment.” Pet. 19. This is in accord with the specification of the ’990 patent which states that “[t]he announcer device 30 is responsible for announcing to the environment the availability of a current device for accepting routed media.” Ex. 1001, 7:15–17 (emphasis added). The construction that Petitioner does promote, based on its interpretation of Patent Owner’s arguments in the parallel litigation, departs from the term’s ordinary meaning, yet Petitioner has presented no evidence to justify such a 7 Petitioner also argues that we should construe the term media transformer as a means-plus-function limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pet. 7–11. We need not construe this term to reach our decision not to institute trial in this proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). departure. For example, Petitioner has not shown that the patent applicant has plainly acted as lexicographer for the term, or has plainly disavowed the full scope of the term. See Thorner v. Sony, 669 F.3d at 1365; Multiform Desiccants v. Medzam, 133 F.3d at 1477. We are aware of no evidentiary basis for Petitioner’s proposed construction in the specification or prosecution history of the ’990 patent. To the extent, if any, that Patent Owner may have argued in the parallel district court proceeding for a departure from the term’s ordinary meaning, we find no clear disavowal of the term’s scope, particularly in light of Patent Owner’s ultimate argument that the term should have its “[p]lain meaning.” Ex. 2008, 2.” slip op. at 12

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

    “In light of our disagreement with Petitioner’s proposed claim- construction, we do not find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that Chihara teaches the “announcer limitation,” either alone or in light of BluetoothSpec. Although Petitioner shows that Chihara’s phone 11B announces its availability for pairing with nearby Bluetooth-compatible devices, Petitioner does not argue that phone 11B indicates availability to receive any rerouted data from either headset 13 or watch 12B. To the extent that phone 11B receives data for rerouting, it appears to receive it from a mobile or fixed communication network, not from any surrounding Bluetooth devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 79 (phone 11B receives video and audio data via “a fixed telephone network or another mobile telephone set accommodated in a mobile communication network,” and transmits that streaming data to watch 12B and headset 13), 53–54 (calls arrive via mobile telephone antenna 26, which are then processed and transmitted via Bluetooth antenna 21 to watch 12). Regarding the bidirectional communication between phone 11B and headset 13 or watch 12B, Petitioner has not pointed to any evidence that the data sent from watch 12B or headset 13 to phone 11B includes rerouted data. Similarly, Petitioner’s contention that Chihara’s phone 11B, in light of BluetoothSpec, indicates its availability (e.g., that the phone is “powered on” and transmits signals to discover nearby devices) fails to meet the plain language of claim 1, which requires the streaming device (phone 11B) to indicate its availability to receive rerouted data from the surrounding devices (headset 13 or watch 12B). Thus, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that Chihara, in view of BluetoothSpec and the other references, teaches the “announcer device” limitation. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that it would be likely to prevail if we instituted an inter partes review.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,969,990
• AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Servicves Inc. et al. v. Daingean Technologies Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00730 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 were anticipated or obvious over Lee or Zheng.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The Petition, to justify institution of review, must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition has not met this standard. Therefore, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “capability to include one or both first CBs and second CBs within any one of the CBGs. Prelim. Resp. 9–10. The plain and ordinary meaning of the CB/CBG limitation, however, does not provide such a requirement. Instead, the plain and ordinary meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” simply requires that at least one CBG contain each CB. Although the description in the Specification of the configuration example of Figure 11(c) arguably describes the capacity of a system to include the first and second CBs in any one of CBGs, the Specification’s permissive language does not appear in the challenged claims. That description reads:” slip op. at 6

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

    “multiple CB/CBG limitation, we nevertheless find it necessary to construe the limitation. Upon review of the record, we construe the limitation as requiring that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. The plain meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” is that each CB is included in a CBG, which means that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. Further, the Specification supports construing the limitation to have this plain meaning. Figure 11 of the ’509 patent, shown below, provides a configuration example of CBGs (Ex. 1001, 23:7–8):” slip op. at 7

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

    “multiple CB/CBG limitation, we nevertheless find it necessary to construe the limitation. Upon review of the record, we construe the limitation as requiring that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. The plain meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” is that each CB is included in a CBG, which means that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. Further, the Specification supports construing the limitation to have this plain meaning. Figure 11 of the ’509 patent, shown below, provides a configuration example of CBGs (Ex. 1001, 23:7–8):” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,196,509
• AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. Daingean Technologies Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00644 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 5, 7, and 8 were unpatentable over R2-1702708, which was not shown to be a prior-art printed publication.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “§ 42.4(a), we may only institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2023). Applying that standard, we do not institute an inter partes review, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). If the petition relies on an alleged printed publication, “at the institution stage, the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 9

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 11,134,400

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.