• Stryker Corporation / Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Osteomed LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2026 · IPR2021-01451 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 6, 8, 9, and 13 were held unpatentable; claims 2–5, 11, and 12 were not shown unpatentable because Slater lacks the claimed central axis.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “addressing the ’085 patent and by the court’s analysis in Stryker, we conclude that Slater does not anticipate claims 2–5, 11, and 12 of the ’776 patent because Slater deliberately describes a variable angle hole that lacks a single predetermined angle—that is, Slater describes a transfixation screw hole that does not have a central axis defining the trajectory.” slip op. at 13

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

    “In its Petition, Petitioner contends that Weaver discloses the limitations in claim 6 and that it would have been obvious to add Weaver’s features to Slater’s plate to provide a more secure fixation between the screws and the plate. Pet. 36–39; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169–74. Specifically, Petitioner contends that configuring Slater’s transfixation screw hole (claim 6) or at least one of Slater’s attachment points (claim 8) as a threaded screw hole to lockably engage the head of a locking screw would have been an obvious design choice “because locking screws ‘provide a high resistance to shear or torsional forces’ and reduce the incidence of screw loosening.” Pet. 39 (quoting Ex. 1009, 1:57–58); Ex. 1009, 1:46–48; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169– 74. Petitioner otherwise relies on its anticipation analysis for claim 1 discussed above. Pet. 36.” slip op. at 17

  • RemandOther

    “Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court issued its decision in Stryker Corp. v. OsteoMed LLC, No. 2023-1925, 2025 WL 2814019 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025) (“Stryker”) (Paper 49),1 affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, vacating and remanding-in-part our Final Written Decision (Paper 46, “FWD”) for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding of no anticipation as to independent claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent 9,351,776 B2 (“the ’776 patent,” Ex. 1001), and vacated and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate whether dependent claims 2–6 and 8, 9 and 11–13 (the “Remanded Claims”) are unpatentable in view of Petitioner’s challenges relying on the Slater reference. Stryker, slip op. 14– 15.” slip op. at 2

  Patent outcomesUS 9,351,776 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,351,776
• Everstar Merchandise Co., Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2025 · PGR2019-00056 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Remand

  Claims 2–7, 9–19, 21–25, 27, 30, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious; Petitioner did not prove claims 8, 20, 26, 28, 29, and 32 unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandMixed

    “The Federal Circuit found that “[t]he factual record and Willis’s concession on appeal conclusively establish that the cost of copper was a known problem in the art, Debladis ’120 (and Kumada) helped address that issue, and Willis has not disputed that combining the teachings of Kumada and Debladis ’120 was within the skill of an ordinary artisan,” concluding “[n]othing more is required to establish a motivation to combine.” Everstar II, 2025 WL 1501940, 4. The Federal Circuit observed that “Willis has conceded that the combination of Kumada and Debladis ’120 disclose all the limitations in claim 1,” and accordingly, “reverse[d] the Board’s patentability determination as to that claim and vacate[d] the Board’s judgment as to the remaining claims of the ’037 patent,” remanding to us for further proceedings. Id. at 4–5. With those instructions in mind, we review the Petitioner’s allegations regarding claims 2–33.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “F. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the First Final Written Decision, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have (1) at least two years of experience in the design of decorative lighting, or (2) at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, and a basic familiarity with circuits used in decorative lighting.” Paper 40, 12. We see no reason to depart from that earlier determination.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The parties agree that we do not need to construe any claim terms. Pet. 8–9; PO Resp. 16–17. We likewise agree. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 13

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

    “Patent Owner did not dispute that the combined teachings of Kumada and Debladis ’120 disclose each limitation of claim 1. Patent Owner, however, did dispute Petitioner’s proposed reasons for combining Kumada and Debladis ’120, and argues that Debladis ’120 is not analogous art. PO Resp. 36–61. The Federal Circuit stated that substantial evidence only supports the conclusion that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kumada and Debladis ’120. The factual record and Willis’s concession on appeal conclusively establish that the cost of copper was a known problem in the art, Debladis ’120 (and Kumada) helped address that issue, and Willis has not disputed that combining the teachings of Kumada and Debladis ’120 was within the skill of an ordinary artisan. Nothing more is required to establish a motivation to combine. Given that Willis has conceded that the combination of Kumada and Debladis ’120 disclose all the limitations in claim 1, we reverse the Board’s patentability determination as to that claim and vacate the Board’s judgment as to the remaining claims of the ’037 patent. Everstar II, 2025 WL 1501940, 4 (internal citations omitted). The Federal Circuit further noted Patent Owner’s secondary considerations arguments as to claim 1 and stated [t]he cited evidence consists only of a temporal connection between the introduction of Willis’s invention and the UL 588 standards, and deposition testimony of a single witness who seemingly disclaimed any connection between the two. This is not sufficient to rescue a claim as to secondary considerations. Id. at 4, n. 5 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit ruled that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kumada and Debladis ’120. 6. Analysis of Independent Claim 33” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,222,037 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,222,037
• Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01231 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable under §103; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations do not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25

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

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251
• Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01262 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11

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

    “attempts to extrapolate Mahajan’s specific teachings and specific architecture into a general principle such that specific commands are converted to universal commands and then universal commands are converted to specific commands regardless of the location of the process within a distributed system. See Tr. 14:5–11. Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s extrapolation arguments are unsupported by Mahajan. We understand Petitioner argues that Mahajan’s “distributed computing environments” would have rendered it obvious to alter the location where command conversions occur. Pet. 41; Reply 10–11, 14. Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251
• Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00322 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations do not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11

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

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251
• Stryker Corporation / Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Osteomed LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01453 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable: Slater anticipates claims 1–3, 6, and 7, and Slater with Weaver renders claims 4 and 5 obvious; claims 8 and 9 remain patentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “summarized above, we determine that Patent Owner has the better position. First, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reliance on the new declaration from Dr. Holmes goes beyond the bounds of permissible argument and evidence in reply. See PO Sur-reply 11–14. The 23-page declaration goes into detail as to how a surgeon would use Falkner’s plate when spanning two bones. See Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 20–36. While some of these opinions are certainly responsive to Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Mr. Sommers, much if not all of the material could have been included with the Petition. Falkner contains readily apparent shortcomings when it comes to its two-bone embodiment because it devotes only a sentence, and no figures, to this possibility. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 21. Petitioner should have foreseen the potential shortcomings of Falkner as an anticipatory reference and included a declaration from Dr. Holmes with the Petition. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”), 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”), 74–75 (“It is also improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.”). Without the supporting testimony of Dr. Holmes, Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply lack adequate support and Patent Owner’s arguments in its Response are largely unrebutted.” slip op. at 51

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “summarized above, we determine that Patent Owner has the better position. First, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reliance on the new declaration from Dr. Holmes goes beyond the bounds of permissible argument and evidence in reply. See PO Sur-reply 11–14. The 23-page declaration goes into detail as to how a surgeon would use Falkner’s plate when spanning two bones. See Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 20–36. While some of these opinions are certainly responsive to Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Mr. Sommers, much if not all of the material could have been included with the Petition. Falkner contains readily apparent shortcomings when it comes to its two-bone embodiment because it devotes only a sentence, and no figures, to this possibility. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 21. Petitioner should have foreseen the potential shortcomings of Falkner as an anticipatory reference and included a declaration from Dr. Holmes with the Petition. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”), 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”), 74–75 (“It is also improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.”). Without the supporting testimony of Dr. Holmes, Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply lack adequate support and Patent Owner’s arguments in its Response are largely unrebutted.” slip op. at 51

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering with at least two years of experience in the field, such as experience with the design of surgical implants, or a clinical practitioner with a medical degree and at least two years of experience as an orthopedic surgeon.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–39). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’085 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, we determine that we need not expressly construe any claim term to resolve any of the challenges we consider in this Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 10,245,085 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,245,085
• Apple Inc. v. Personalized Media Communications LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2022 · IPR2016-01520 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 4, 7, 13, 18, 20, 21, 28–30, 32, and 33 were held unpatentable; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable, and the contingent motions to amend remained denied.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “CONCLUSION After reviewing the record developed during trial anew and taking into account the Federal Circuit’s decision, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 7, 13, 18, 20, 21, 28–30, 32, and 33 of the ’635 Patent are unpatentable, and that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 of the ’635 Patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 103

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

    “in the art would have understood “encrypted video” recited in claim 4 to exclude teletext and would recognize “video” to be distinct from static text and images. 754-PO Resp. 19. Petitioner counters that “video” is any information that is visually perceivable including the display of static pictures. 754-Pet. Reply 5 (citing IPR2016-00754, Ex. 2028, 10–12; IPR2016-00754, Ex. 1003, 278:21–24, 258:16–19, 13:38–52, 188:17–18, 249:53–56). During oral argument, Petitioner argued that a single image can qualify as video. IPR2016-00754, Paper 40, 14:24–25 (“JUDGE WARD: So one image qualifies as video. MR. SERNEL: I think arguably it would.”). We do not agree with Petitioner’s position that the display of a static image constitutes “video”; otherwise, there would be no difference in an image and video. We determine that video requires moving visuals. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner stated that video shows movement and changes within an image. IPR2016-00754, Paper 7, 60 (citing IPR2016- 00754, Ex. 2001 ¶ 122). Petitioner’s Declarant Mr. Wechselberger seems to agree as he describes that “[s]uccessive frames of text and/or graphics presented on the display means 20 constitutes video.” IPR2016-00754, Ex. 1001 ¶ 141. We determine that the construction of the term “video” recited in claim 4 of the ’635 Patent means “visually perceivable non-static imagery.”” slip op. at 44

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

    “teletext in accordance with its well-known capabilities as part of a television program. IPR2016-00754, Ex. 1001 ¶ 201. As the Supreme Court instructed in KSR, it is proper to “consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” 550 U.S. at 401. Based on the foregoing, we determine Petitioner has provided a sufficient rationale for the modification of Guillou. Id. at 418. Accordingly, we determine the record supports Petitioner’s proposed modification of Guillou such that the encrypted materials comprise a portion of a television program, and we adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own.” slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 8,559,635 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,559,635
• Apple Inc. v. Personalized Media Communications LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2022 · IPR2016-00754 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 4, 7, 13, 18, 20, 21, 28–30, 32, and 33 were held unpatentable; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “D. Scope of Consideration on Remand Per the briefing on remand, Petitioner asserts that the above-discussed” slip op. at 11

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “1 Patent Owner subsequently disclaimed claims 1 and 2 of the ’635 Patent (IPR2016-00754, Ex. 3001), such that we need not consider those claims with respect to the instituted grounds. 2 US Patent No. 4,337,483, filed Jan. 31, 1980 (Ex. 1006) (“Guillou”). 3 US Patent No. 4,388,643, filed Apr. 6, 1981 (Ex. 1008) (“Aminetzah”). 4 US Patent No. 3,743,767, filed Oct. 4, 1971 (Ex. 1009) (“Bitzer”). 5 Under Board practice at the time, not all grounds and claims proffered in the Petition were instituted.” slip op. at 2

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

    “L. Contingent Motions to Amend As discussed above, Patent Owner also filed a Contingent Motion to Amend in each proceeding (IPR2016-00754, Paper 15; IPR2016-01520, Paper 16). In respective Final Written Decisions (754-FWD, 1520-FWD), we denied both contingent motions to amend. See 754-FWD, 64–71; 1520- FWD, 55–66. As neither the Federal Circuit decision in PMC, nor the Order Granting Request for Director Review, addressed the contingent motions to amend, we incorporate-by-reference our prior analyses and continue to deny those motions, save consideration of one claim, discussed below. In both Final Written Decisions, we were not persuaded that Patent Owner had demonstrated that the substitute claims had proper written description support, with the exception of one claim in each Motion to Amend, where those latter, substituted claims were not shown to be patentable over the prior art of record. See 754-FWD, 64–71; 1520-FWD, 55–66. With respect to IPR2016-01520, substitute claim 41, a proposed substitute for challenged claim 3, was shown to have proper written description support. 1520-FWD, 62–63. As discussed above, however, claim 3 has not been demonstrated to be unpatentable, such that proposed, substitute claim 41 need not be considered, based on the contingencies specified in the Contingent Motion to Amend. IPR2016-01520, Paper 16.” slip op. at 101

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to Petitioner’s Declarant, Mr. Wechselberger, a person of” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,559,635 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,559,635
• Xilinx, Inc. / Xilinx Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Analog Devices, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2022 · IPR2020-01564 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–8 were not shown unpatentable; claim 12 was shown unpatentable as obvious over Elbornsson and Jamal, and over Eklund and Jamal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have at least a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or equivalent field, including studies in designing data converters, and two to five years of relevant experience; or a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering or equivalent field.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 17–18). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. See generally PO Resp. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation because it is consistent with the ’750 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Patent Owner contends that “random clock,” “offset sensing circuit,” and “sensing” a gain or offset signal need to be construed. PO Resp. 13–17. Petitioner contends that no construction of any term is necessary. Reply 2– 5. The contentions of the parties were addressed in our Final Written Decision for IPR2020-01483, which was mailed on the same day as this Decision. We decline to construe these terms for the reasons given in that Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Raychowdhury testifies that, in Jamal’s technique, “the input is de-correlated from the pseudo random chopping sequence.” Ex. 2206 ¶ 64. Then, inexplicably, Dr. Raychowdhury testifies that “Jamal is unambiguous that ‘C[m] is white, has zero mean, and is uncorrelated with the input signal.’” Id. at ¶ 69. Patent Owner does not explain nor even address Dr. Raychowdhury’s inconsistent testimony. Given the inconsistent positions taken by Patent Owner’s expert, and the lack of explanation from Patent Owner, we give no weight to Dr. Raychowdhury’s testimony.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Even were we to accept Petitioner’s contention, that a ‘“random clock’ can be satisfied by a 1-bit pseudo-random bit sequence,” (Pet. 36), Jamal discloses that the alleged random clock C[m] “is uncorrelated with the input signal.” Ex. 1205, 8. A chopping SHA multiplies the input signal and the uncorrelated random signal C[m], then provides a chopped analog signal to the ADC converter. Id. Petitioner has not persuasively shown that chopping an input signal with an uncorrelated random signal, then providing the chopped signal to a converter as disclosed by Jamal, describes “said random clock configured to decorrelate an input signal provided to said first converter from said random clock” as recited in claim 1. We find that claim 1 is not unpatentable based on Jamal. Because claims 2 and 4–6 depend from claim 1, we find that these claims are also not unpatentable based on Jamal.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,900,750 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,900,750
• Xilinx, Inc. / Xilinx Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Analog Devices, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2022 · IPR2020-01336 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Oliaei; claims 3, 5, 7, 10–17, and 29 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Response. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Peter Kinget, testifies that Petitioner’s proposed level of education and experience for a person of ordinary skill is reasonable. Ex. 2002 ¶ 9. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal because it is consistent with the ’463 patent and the asserted prior art and not disputed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 6

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

    “U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).1 Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner contends it has construed all claim terms according to this standard, but does not propose any express constructions. See Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20, 22, 134–135). Patent Owner does not expressly address claim construction of any claim terms in its Response. See generally PO Resp. We determine that no formal constructions of any specific terms or words in the claim are necessary in this proceeding.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Overall, we find Dr. Holberg’s testimony particularly telling, and not very persuasive, with respect to combining Oliaei and Vittoz. Dr. Holberg makes clear that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have analyzed Oliaei’s circuit, and in particular any switches that were of concern, before implementing charge injection compensation circuitry. See, e.g., id. at 25:8– 26:22 (Dr. Holberg describing for a pacemaker amplifier circuit he designed “I definitely did a lot of analysis because I had to deal with the DC value, so I did a lot of analysis on the charge injection impact.”). Dr. Holberg did not, however, provide any technical analysis or circuit performance simulations in his original declaration showing that Oliaei would benefit from Vittoz’s charge injection compensation circuitry. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 200–218. Also, in his original Declaration, Dr. Holberg testified that “[a] POSITA could have combined the common-mode circuit and the common-mode feedback circuit of Oliaei with the impedance matching circuit of Vittoz using the known modeling methods disclosed by Vittoz.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 202 (citing Ex. 1012, 101–105, Fig. 7). The mere fact that the prior art reference could be modified does not satisfy the requirements for a finding of obviousness. Indeed, even if Vittoz’s charge injection circuit could be implemented in Oliaei’s CMFB circuit, and “a POSITA would recognize Vittoz’s balancing capacitors and dummy switches would operate in substantially the same way, whether in the system disclosed by Vittoz or the system disclosed by Oliaei,” as Dr. Holberg testifies, this does not explain persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added Vittoz’s charge injection circuitry into Oliaei’s CMFB circuit.” slip op. at 44

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

    “Considering all the evidence of record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not asserted sufficient rationale for the combination of Oliaei and Vittoz. See PO Resp. 51–77; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 71–103. Petitioner alleges similarities between Oliaei and Vittoz and that the resulting combination, based on a desire to compensate for charge injection, would have predictably yielded the claimed system. Pet. 77–81. The arguments and evidence are deficient, however, for several reasons. First, as discussed above, we considered Petitioner’s assertion that a person of skill in the art would consider charge injection as a reason to look to Vittoz. Pet. 77. The evidence from both Dr. Holberg and Dr. Kinget is clear, however, that charge injection is not always necessary or compensated for in every switched capacitor circuit. See, e.g., Ex. 2003, 39:16–18 (Dr. Holberg stating that “I’m sure I’ve never put charge compensation circuitry on every switch. I’m sure of that.”). Second, Petitioner’s evidence including simulations of the combined Oliaei and Vittoz teachings, together with Patent Owner’s simulation evidence, illustrate that there are no clear-cut improvements in Oliaei’s circuit. The experts’ simulations, as a whole, show that by choosing particular parameters Oliaei’s circuit performance might be improved, and choosing other reasonable parameters would not improve circuit performance. With results of the simulations going both ways, the evidence is not persuasive that the combination would have yielded a predictable result. Third, the alleged rationale of adding charge injection compensation does not address sufficiently the reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the relevant teachings of Oliaei and Vittoz. Oliaei expressly discloses that the inventors undertook “numerous” simulations to address issues of clock-feedthrough glitches, i.e., charge injection, and that the results showed no impact of charge injection on system performance. Ex. 1007 5:17–32. Without sufficient explanation, Petitioner and Dr. Holberg have failed to present a persuasive rationale for the alleged combination.” slip op. at 49

  Patent outcomesUS 7,012,463 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,012,463

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.