- Qualcomm Incorporated v. Unm Rainforest InnovationsAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 30, 2025 · IPR2021-00375 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Remand
Proposed substitute claims 44–47, 49, and 50 are unpatentable as obvious under collateral estoppel; the Board denied Patent Owner’s motion to amend.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“the Acting Director of the USPTO (Paper 81, “Acting Director’s Order”) and after a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) in ZyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, 107 F.4th 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Federal Circuit Decision”) regarding the Board’s original Final Written Decision (Paper 68, “Final Written Decision” or “Final Dec.”) in this proceeding. In particular, the court remanded to the Board to determine if proposed substitute claims 44–47, 49, and 50 are unpatentable as obvious under collateral estoppel based on the court’s holding that claims 1–4 and 6–8 are unpatentable as obvious. ZyXEL, 107 F.4th at 1371, 1384.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“proposed substitute claim 44 presents the same issues as those litigated before the Federal Circuit: whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first key element and whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the second key element.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Final Written Decision, and the Federal Circuit Decision, as well as the postremand briefing, we determine that the application of collateral estoppel to proposed substitute claim 44 is appropriate. It is also appropriate to apply collateral estoppel to substitute claims 45–47, 49, and 50. This is because proposed substitute claims 45–47, 49, and 50 depend from proposed substitute claim 44 and recite identical limitations to dependent claims 2–4, 6, and 7. Therefore, the resolution of the question of obviousness of the subject matter of proposed substitute claims 45–47, 49, and 50 necessarily presents the same issues of whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first key element and whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the second key element.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 8,265,096 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,265,096 - Qualcomm Incorporated v. Network System Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00343 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Rădulescu2004 and OCP; the Board did not reach the Weber-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (2006). “[T]he use of the word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part); Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[This] presumption may be rebutted if the properly construed claim limitation itself recites sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1001, 4:46–50. This passage indicates that the interconnect can be a network on a chip and the network on a chip can include wires and buses. That does not necessarily mean that the interconnect can be just wires or buses; rather, it discloses that the interconnect can include wires and buses. In context, the disclosure regarding wires and buses does not support construing the corresponding structure broadly enough to encompass just wires and buses. The networks that constitute the corresponding structure, however, could include networks with wires and buses. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner that the corresponding structure for the interconnect means should not include a mere bus, switch, and point-to-point wire and instead find that the corresponding structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 is a network, which the ’052 patent describes as a multi-hop interconnection between modules separated by one or more network nodes. See Ex. 1001, 2:33–37. Because this structure corresponds to the construction of “interconnect means” proposed by Patent Owner and adopted by the district courts in the TI and Qualcomm litigations (see supra Section III.C.3.b), and we do not rely in our analysis below on a recourse to “equivalents thereto” as permitted by § 112 ¶ 6, we note that our ultimate conclusions on the unpatentability of the challenged claims would be the same if § 112 ¶ 6 did not apply. iii. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we construe “interconnect means” to cover the structure described in the Specification corresponding to the specified functions of “coupling said plurality of processing modules (M, S)” in the context of claim 6 and “coupling said plurality of processing modules (M, S)” and “enabling a connection-based communication having a set of connection properties” in the context of claims 1 and 7—i.e., a “multi-hop interconnection between modules separated by one or more network nodes”—and equivalents thereof.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,052 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,594,052 - Intel Corporation / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00301 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review for claims 1–11, 16, and 21 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial, and denied joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“2026. This date is nearly five months prior to the date on which the final written decision would be due if trial were instituted in this proceeding. And, even if we assume Petitioner’s alleged February–March 2026 trial date, this date too is several months prior to the projected final written decision deadline. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding would issue before trial in the district court, unless the trial was delayed or rescheduled for a later time. Thus, we find this factor weighs in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. See ARM Ltd. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, IPR2025-00207, Paper 10 at 2 (May 16, 2025) (Before the Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office) (exercising discretion to deny institution with the same relative timing between district court trial and final written decision deadline).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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). Institution of inter partes review, however, is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons discussed below, we exercise discretion pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) not to institute inter partes review. Additionally, for the same reasons and because institution was denied in IPR2024-01248, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (“[T]he Director . . . may join as a party . . . any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director . . . determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.”).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,814,071 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00285 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the same claims, grounds, arguments, and evidence had already failed the reasonable-likelihood threshold in the Samsung IPR, and denied joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which states as follows: JOINDER.— If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314. Because joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) is premised on an inter partes review having been instituted, and the Board did not institute review in the Samsung IPR to which Petitioner seeks to join, we deny the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,947,505 - PTAB · Feb 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00996 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 13–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. The art or arguments presented in the Petition are not “substantially the same” as those previously presented to the Office when there are differences between them that are material to the Office’s prior consideration of the art and arguments. Wolfspeed, Inc. v. Trs. of Purdue Univ., IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7–8 (Vidal Mar. 30, 2023).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that: [A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree or higher in electrical engineering, at least 3 years of experience designing or researching electronic circuits, and familiarity with power electronics and inductive power transfer circuits. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this preliminary response, Patent Owner adopts the Petitioner’s proposal.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard,” and “[h]ere, given the remarkable overlap between the preferred embodiment of the ’461 patent and the prior art/predictable combinations articulated in Grounds 1A–3, Petitioners submit that no claim elements need a formal construction for purposes of resolving the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner states that, “[t]o simplify the issues before the Board, Patent Owner has not asserted any claim constructions in this preliminary response and adopts the Petitioner’s position that ‘[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.’” Prelim. Resp. 17 (quoting Pet. 8). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“At this preliminary stage of the proceeding, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Owner does not cite to evidence, such as expert testimony, to support its implied argument that Olson’s measured current is “fundamentally different” from the current received by the primary coil. See Prelim. Resp. 31–32. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Woods, on the other hand, testifies, inter alia, that “[t]he ‘[c]urrent measured by current measure block 226 is used in the calculation of power, which as depicted in FIG. 14, measures the ‘power in’ provided to transmit block 214/primary coil 54.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 74–75, Fig. 14) (first alteration added); see also, e.g., id. ¶ 42 (Dr. Woods testifying that the measured current to the power supply “is the current driving the external antenna 52, via the transmit block 214 and to the primary coil 54.” (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 74–75, 112, Fig. 14)). Paragraph 75 of Olson, cited in support of that testimony, provides: “The power in is gauged by the power generated by charging unit 50 and is determined by multiplying the voltage of the internal voltage of charging unit 50, e.g., the voltage of a battery or batteries internal to charging unit 50, by the current driving external antenna 52.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 75 (emphasis added). We note that external antenna 52 includes primary coil 54. See, e.g., Fig. 14. Dr. Woods’ testimony is, at this stage, unrebutted. Patent Owner also argues that “Petitioner fails to provide any evidence regarding the function of Olson’s microprocessor 212 in relation to measuring input power,” and that, “[w]hile Olson describes a power calculation in paragraph [0075], Olson does not describe this power calculation as performed by microprocessor 212.” Prelim. Resp. 32 (citing Pet. 16; Ex. 1004 ¶ 72) (first alteration added). At this preliminary stage of the proceeding, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the microprocessor. Although Patent Owner does not bear the burden to show patentability, we observe that Patent Owner does not suggest that there is another component in Olson’s external charging device that might perform the admittedly-disclosed power calculation. See Prelim. Resp. 32–33. Dr. Woods testifies that microprocessor 212 receives the measured current and the input voltage of the charging device, and, from those values, calculates power in. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–44 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 71–78, Fig. 14); see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 74, Fig. 14 (Olson stating that “[c]urrent measured by current measure block 226 is used in the calculation of power in along with the voltage of batteries 160,” and Figure 14 depicting the signal from measure block 226 as an input to microprocessor 212). Dr. Woods’ testimony is, at this stage, unrebutted.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,626,461 - PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00913 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 6–12, 14, and 16–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim in each petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“First, we find no basis for exercising our discretion to deny institution with regard to the Juniper case because that case does not yet have a scheduling order in place, and, as Petitioner points out, the median time to trial in that district is 34.6 months, which puts the trial in approximately July 2026, so there is nothing in the record to indicate that a trial will occur before our deadline for a final written decision in these proceedings. See Fintiv at 5 (“When the patent owner raises an argument for discretionary denial under NHK due to an earlier trial date, the Board’s decisions have balanced [Fintiv] factors [1–6].” (emphasis added)); Pet. 67 (arguing that “the court has neither entered a schedule nor set a trial date”); Prelim. Resp. 18 (acknowledging that “the court has not yet entered a schedule or set a trial date for the Juniper case”). Second, following submission of the papers in these proceedings, the Cisco case was dismissed on December 26, 2024. Ex. 3001. Accordingly, there will be no trial in the Cisco case and thus we are not persuaded that the interests of efficiency and integrity of the system would be best served by invoking our authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Petitioner filed both of its petitions in the instant proceedings on the same day, May 31, 2024, and the prior petition in IPR2024-00506 was filed by a different party previously sued for infringement of the ’394 patent in a different district court case. Therefore, there are no serial petitions, as that term is used in General Plastic, filed in these IPRs. However, “our application of the General Plastic factors is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner. Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors.” Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). Petitioner argues that “no significant relationship exists” between it and Cisco, as they were “accused of infringing the ’394 patent with different products in different court proceedings . . . and have not coordinated regarding the ’394 patent, the separately accused products, or the filing of petitions for IPR.” Pet. 70. Patent Owner provides no evidence of a significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco, but nonetheless argues that factors 1–5 favor discretionary denial anyway, because Petitioner had knowledge of the Cisco petition, citing the Board’s decision in Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550, Paper 8 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2020) (“Ericsson”), for the proposition that Petitioner’s use of the Cisco petition as a roadmap ties the interests of the petitioners together. Prelim. Resp. 26. We are not persuaded by this assertion. First, Ericsson is not a precedential or informative decision and is not binding on us or informative to our analysis. Moreover, in that case there were five prior petitions that covered all of the challenged claims, and the petitioner admitted crafting its petition based on its review of the prior petitions. Ericsson at 3, 11. Petitioner here has not made such a concession, and moreover, Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that Petitioner actually did use the petition in IPR2024-00506 as a roadmap. Under the circumstances, we find no evidence that Petitioner used the prior petition filed by Cisco as a roadmap, particularly when none of the timing associated with the prior petition was within its control. We find no significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco. “[W]here, as here, the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Videndum Prod. Sols., Inc. v. Rotolight Ltd., IPR2023-01218, Paper 12 at 6 (Vidal Apr. 19, 2024). Accordingly, based on the particular facts of these proceedings, including the points addressed above, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petitions on that basis.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Conclusion Regarding Ground 1 Based on the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 1. Petitioner also contends that claim 11, which is an apparatus claim for a network element that otherwise has similar limitations as claim 1, is rendered obvious for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. Pet. 57–61. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s arguments for claim 11 for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 10–16. Based on the current record, we also find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 11. We need not determine at this time whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 17, also challenged in Ground 1. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“sufficient showing that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Hu’s concept of aggregating ports to form a high-capacity port for transmitting multicast streams to the network device disclosed by Blease, and we do not agree that Blease teaches away from incorporating such aggregation. Both Blease and Hu are directed to similar subject matter, processing multicast stream requests, and Hu’s link aggregation addresses the problem of potentially overloading a port when doing so. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (57) (“The network device transmits multicast traffic to the subscriber devices.”); Ex. 1007, claim 17 (“A network device to allocate media streams . . . .”), 1:20–29 (disclosing that, if “insufficient bandwidth [is allocated] to video streams, the quality of service degrades”); see Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“That [two prior art references] address the same problem and that [one of the references] was a known way to address that problem is precisely the reason that there’s a motivation to combine under KSR and our precedent.”). On this record, we are persuaded that applying Hu’s port aggregation teaching to Blease’s router would be the application of a known technique to improve the router to allow it to provide multicast streams that require higher bandwidth with predicable results. Pet. 28; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–21. As pointed out by Petitioner, these two concepts could be combined together in a straightforward manner and applied to streams that require high-capacity ports, a technique already applied elsewhere in Blease to other ports, so a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–94; see Elekta Ltd. v. Zap Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Evidence of reasonable expectation of success, just like evidence of a motivation to combine, ‘may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.’”) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). On this record, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Blease teaches away from using aggregated ports to form a high-capacity link because “Blease’s disclosure is clear that the focus of its multicast techniques is to reduce, not increase, the amount of multicast traffic flowing through network.” Prelim. Resp. 14. The discussion in Blease of minimizing the bandwidth does not relate to restricting the bandwidth required for a particular stream as Patent Owner seems to assert, but rather to eliminating duplicate transmissions of the same multicast stream to be delivered to multiple subscribers. See Ex. 1005, 2:39–42, 4:50–56 (“The multicast transmission techniques described herein may significantly reduce the amount of multicast traffic . . . . For example, regardless of the number of subscriber devices[] connected to the same network switch that request the same multicast stream, [the] network device[] only sends one copy of the multicast stream to the network switch.”). Therefore, aggregating ports to accommodate transmission of a single multicast stream that requires more bandwidth is a different concept that is unrelated to the discussion in Blease about minimizing bandwidth by increasing efficiency.” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,014,394 - PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00989 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 6–12, 14, and 16–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim in each Petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“First, we find no basis for exercising our discretion to deny institution with regard to the Juniper case because that case does not yet have a scheduling order in place, and, as Petitioner points out, the median time to trial in that district is 34.6 months, which puts the trial in approximately July 2026, so there is nothing in the record to indicate that a trial will occur before our deadline for a final written decision in these proceedings. See Fintiv at 5 (“When the patent owner raises an argument for discretionary denial under NHK due to an earlier trial date, the Board’s decisions have balanced [Fintiv] factors [1–6].” (emphasis added)); Pet. 67 (arguing that “the court has neither entered a schedule nor set a trial date”); Prelim. Resp. 18 (acknowledging that “the court has not yet entered a schedule or set a trial date for the Juniper case”). Second, following submission of the papers in these proceedings, the Cisco case was dismissed on December 26, 2024. Ex. 3001. Accordingly, there will be no trial in the Cisco case and thus we are not persuaded that the interests of efficiency and integrity of the system would be best served by invoking our authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“same day, May 31, 2024, and the prior petition in IPR2024-00506 was filed by a different party previously sued for infringement of the ’394 patent in a different district court case. Therefore, there are no serial petitions, as that term is used in General Plastic, filed in these IPRs. However, “our application of the General Plastic factors is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner. Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors.” Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). Petitioner argues that “no significant relationship exists” between it and Cisco, as they were “accused of infringing the ’394 patent with different products in different court proceedings . . . and have not coordinated regarding the ’394 patent, the separately accused products, or the filing of petitions for IPR.” Pet. 70. Patent Owner provides no evidence of a significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco, but nonetheless argues that factors 1–5 favor discretionary denial anyway, because Petitioner had knowledge of the Cisco petition, citing the Board’s decision in Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550, Paper 8 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2020) (“Ericsson”), for the proposition that Petitioner’s use of the Cisco petition as a roadmap ties the interests of the petitioners together. Prelim. Resp. 26. We are not persuaded by this assertion. First, Ericsson is not a precedential or informative decision and is not binding on us or informative to our analysis. Moreover, in that case there were five prior petitions that covered all of the challenged claims, and the petitioner admitted crafting its petition based on its review of the prior petitions. Ericsson at 3, 11. Petitioner here has not made such a concession, and moreover, Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that Petitioner actually did use the petition in IPR2024-00506 as a roadmap. Under the circumstances, we find no evidence that Petitioner used the prior petition filed by Cisco as a roadmap, particularly when none of the timing associated with the prior petition was within its control. We find no significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco. “[W]here, as here, the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Videndum Prod. Sols., Inc. v. Rotolight Ltd., IPR2023-01218, Paper 12 at 6 (Vidal Apr. 19, 2024). Accordingly, based on the particular facts of these proceedings, including the points addressed above, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petitions on that basis.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Conclusion Regarding Ground 1 Based on the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 1. Petitioner also contends that claim 11, which is an apparatus claim for a network element that otherwise has similar limitations as claim 1, is rendered obvious for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. Pet. 57–61. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s arguments for claim 11 for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 10–16. Based on the current record, we also find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 11. We need not determine at this time whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 17, also challenged in Ground 1. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“sufficient showing that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Hu’s concept of aggregating ports to form a high-capacity port for transmitting multicast streams to the network device disclosed by Blease, and we do not agree that Blease teaches away from incorporating such aggregation. Both Blease and Hu are directed to similar subject matter, processing multicast stream requests, and Hu’s link aggregation addresses the problem of potentially overloading a port when doing so. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (57) (“The network device transmits multicast traffic to the subscriber devices.”); Ex. 1007, claim 17 (“A network device to allocate media streams . . . .”), 1:20–29 (disclosing that, if “insufficient bandwidth [is allocated] to video streams, the quality of service degrades”); see Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“That [two prior art references] address the same problem and that [one of the references] was a known way to address that problem is precisely the reason that there’s a motivation to combine under KSR and our precedent.”). On this record, we are persuaded that applying Hu’s port aggregation teaching to Blease’s router would be the application of a known technique to improve the router to allow it to provide multicast streams that require higher bandwidth with predicable results. Pet. 28; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–21. As pointed out by Petitioner, these two concepts could be combined together in a straightforward manner and applied to streams that require high-capacity ports, a technique already applied elsewhere in Blease to other ports, so a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–94; see Elekta Ltd. v. Zap Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Evidence of reasonable expectation of success, just like evidence of a motivation to combine, ‘may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.’”) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,014,394 - Intel Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2024-01008 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends that the challenged claims do not need construction to demonstrate unpatentability. Pet. 14. Petitioner, however, notes that the parties in the ITC proceeding identified above dispute the meaning of several claim terms. Id. (citing Ex. 1026). Petitioner specifically notes that “the parties dispute what is required of independent claims 1, 5, and 16 to ‘determin[e] how many pixels’ to filter in each block.” Id. (citing Ex. 1026, 6–7). Petitioner argues that “ITC Respondent Lenovo mathematical basis (no relationship) with the pixel values of the pixels in said neighboring block’” (id. (citing Ex. 1026, 6–7)), but Patent Owner “contends that no construction is necessary,” “and the ‘plain meaning’ does not foreclose some ‘mathematical basis’ existing as long as separate decision values are calculated for each block” (id. (citing Ex. 1027, 14–19)). Petitioner indicates that Ground 1 adopts Patent Owner’s broader construction from the ITC proceeding and Ground 2 adopts Lenovo’s narrower construction. Id. at 14–15. Patent Owner argues that “none of the asserted grounds disclose or render obvious the Challenged Claims under the plain meaning of the claims (which is [Patent Owner’s] proposed construction) or under Lenovo’s narrower proposed construction.” Prelim. Resp. 29. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Furthermore, we are not persuaded that modifying Aksu in view of Gonzalez in the manner proposed by Petitioner overcomes this problem. As noted above, Petitioner asserts that, in the proposed combination, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the Laplacian’s output would be compared directly to a threshold based on β—just like Aksu’s difference calculations—to determine how many pixels to filter.” Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1019, 13:15–19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 406–410). We disagree with this assertion, however, because it relies on erroneously equating the output of calculations (i.e., |r1-rj| and |r1-ri+1|). In other words, Aksu’s difference calculations, although used in setting dr, are not the same as dr; and we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered comparing Gonzalez’s Laplacian output to threshold β because Aksu discloses comparing its difference calculations to β. As noted above, we are not directed to any disclosure in Aksu of comparing dr to β. In addition, Dr. Schonfeld’s testimony on this point is not persuasive. Specifically, Dr. Schonfeld testifies that “dr can simply be defined as the output of the Laplacian (dr=|r3-2r2+r1|), and dr could be directly compared to a threshold based on β.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 408 (underline emphasis added). This testimony, however, is entitled to little weight because Dr. Schonfeld fails to provide a sufficient underlying basis for his opinion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Board can reject arguments based on expert testimony that lacks specificity or detail). Moreover, opining that output of the Laplacian, dr, could be directly compared to β does not establish sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“G. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 64–66; Paper 8. Petitioner argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate in this case. Pet. 85–86; Paper 7. Because we are not persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim as discussed above, we need not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial under § 325(d).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,641,841 - PTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00994 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and 9–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Onishi-based obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially 4 For purposes of this Decision, we assume the challenged claims have an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013, the effective date of the relevant aspects of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112- 29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), and we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. The art or arguments presented in the Petition are not “substantially the same” as those previously presented to the Office when there are differences between them that are material to the Office’s prior consideration of the art and arguments. Wolfspeed, Inc. v. Trs. of Purdue Univ., IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7–8 (Vidal Mar. 30, 2023).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’696 patent. Further, we decline to discretionarily deny inter partes review. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’696 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. However, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Mercier, opines that [A]t the time of the ’696 Patent, a POSITA would have a working knowledge of wireless charging and inductive charging. The person would have gained this knowledge through an undergraduate Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, with at least two years of experience working in the field of wireless or inductive charging device design, or testing of such wireless or inductive charging device testing, or 5 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. an equivalent combination of academic study and work experience. More education (e.g., a Master’s degree) or work experience any relevant field may compensate for a deficit in one of the relevant qualifications stated above. Ex. 2001 ¶ 26. We observe that, in Dr. Mercier’s definition, the undergraduate degree categories are a bit broader and the experience possibly a bit more specific than in Petitioner’s definition. However, at this stage and absent argument to the contrary by the parties, we discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Dr. Mercier’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“near-linear region—consistent with the quoted applicant’s use of the term “near-linear”—rather than a linear or non-linear region, which seemingly would encompass the entire curve. As to the second part, we understand Patent Owner to be referring to the purported benefit of linear control, and we determine that Patent Owner has not explained adequately why such a benefit should be read into the claim term “substantially different,” particularly where the quoted Specification support does not explicitly mention linear regulation.7 See Ex. 1001, 21:61–63 (“The induced voltage 7 To the extent that Patent Owner relies on its declarant’s testimony as an explanation of Patent Owner’s claim construction position, we remind Patent Owner about the prohibition on incorporation by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019, 35–36 can be increased by reducing the transmission frequency and can be reduced by increasing the transmission frequency.”). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that— consistent with the Specification’s description of the frequency that is “[p]referably . . . selected” and applicant’s argument regarding the same during prosecution—“a transmission frequency substantially different from said characteristic resonant frequency of said inductive couple” encompasses frequencies that lie within one of the near-linear regions of a frequency-amplitude graph associated with the inductive couple. See Ex. 1001, 21:20– 24; Ex. 1002, 70. At this time and for purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not reach the issue of the outer bounds of the scope of “substantially different.” We also note that independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim and the subject limitation 1.7 further defines the “driving circuit” recited in limitations 1.5 and 1.6. Specifically, limitation 1.7 requires a driving circuit that is “configured and operable to produce said oscillating driving voltage at a transmission frequency” that is “substantially different” from the inductive couple’s resonant frequency. Ex. 1001, 28:43–46. In future briefing, the parties’ arguments regarding the prior art references should focus on that recited structure, i.e., a circuit that is configured and operable to produce the recited frequency.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,048,696 - Ens Labs Ltd. v. Unstoppable Domains Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00872 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–20 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, relying on Johnson’s unproven status as a printed publication.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description with regard to the level of skill at this stage of the proceedings. Prelim. Resp. 12. As Petitioner’s unchallenged description of the level of ordinary skill appears appropriate to the subject matter of the ’344 patent and the cited prior art, we apply it for purposes of this Decision, albeit without the two instances of the phrase “at least,” which introduce ambiguity. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (acknowledging that the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes express construction of any claim terms for our consideration. See Pet. 14 (“Petitioner submits that all claim terms in the ’344 Patent may be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning.”); Prelim. Resp. 12 (“For purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner agrees that claim construction is unnecessary.”). whether to institute inter partes review. 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)). At this stage, we do not see the need to construe any claim terms to resolve the issues in dispute.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“of a document on a website archived by the Internet Archive. See Ex. 1018. That a person might have been able to download Johnson through public means is not evidence that Johnson was “made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Bruckelmyer, 445 F.3d at 1378. The Frank-White Affidavit’s evidence of public accessibility amounts to little more than Johnson was available on the Internet by December 13, 2019. Pet. 15; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 1–5, 7, Ex. B. However, because the Wayback Machine is only searchable by URL, as attested to in the Frank-White Affidavit, this does not suffice to support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought out the Read the Docs website and, once there, located Johnson without prior knowledge of Johnson and the URL at which Johnson was available. Accordingly, the Frank-White Affidavit alone is insufficient to prove public accessibility of Johnson.” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“that Johnson qualifies as a prior art printed publication. All asserted grounds for unpatentability rely, at least in part, on the disclosure of Johnson. Accordingly, because the record does not persuasively support Johnson as a publicly accessible printed publication, we find that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its grounds of unpatentability. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims, and thus, we do not institute an inter partes review. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,558,344
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.