• BMW Of North America, LLC v. Foras Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01347 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach switching the boot-processor role to a spare processor.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “This reference point prevents . . . factfinders from using their own insight or, worse yet, hindsight, to gauge obviousness.” Id.” slip op. at 17

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

    “processor” to the spare processor, we determine that the claim is describing this transfer of identification of “boot processor,” which is required when transferring a boot processor’s functions to a spare because of the “problems [that] arise in attempting to idle (or eject) the boot processor.” Id. at 6:25– 27. This is confirmed by the language of limitation [1d], stating that the switching of the role of boot processor involves “changing a system identifier of the spare processor to that of the boot processor.” Thus, the firmware and operating system exchange this information identifying the boot processor, which is described in the specification as a device tree. See, e.g., id. at 13:21–35. The ’302 patent makes clear that accurate identification of which processor is the boot processor remains critical during runtime. See, e.g., id. at 6:25–27. Thus, Patent Owner is correct in requiring the system to have a way to identify the boot processor and to transfer this identification during runtime. However, as made clear in the embodiments described in the ’302 patent discussed above, this identification is for runtime purposes to accommodate runtime problems, not for booting purposes. Although Patent Owner may be correct that a function of the boot processor is to boot the system (PO Sur-reply 5), the problem identified in the ’302 patent is a problem relating to the runtime reassignment of the boot processor identity, to address a runtime need to identify the boot processor. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 11:6–9. Accordingly, based on our analysis of the claims and specification, we determine that “switching the role of boot processor to a spare processor without shutting down the system’s operating system” means causing the system to identify the spare processor as the boot processor (e.g., in a device tree), which then causes the spare processor to appear as the boot processor to the system during runtime. Ex. 1001, 6:25–41, 11:4–18 (describing why boot processors are treated differently even after the boot process has completed); compare id. at 9:65–11:3 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a non-boot processor without using a spare), with id. at 11:4–43 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a boot processor using a spare because boot processors, during runtime, need special treatment); see also 14:66–15:21 (emphasizing that spares are only needed for recovering boot processors). We construe switching a “role of boot processor” to mean transferring an identification in the system of which processor is the boot processor. This construction comports with the embodiments described in the specification. We do not adopt an additional requirement that this procedure also requires designating which processor will boot the system in the next reboot, which is not disclosed in the specification.” slip op. at 24

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

    “may swap processors that are failing, and perform the necessary bookkeeping to keep the operating system informed as to how to address the processors available, nothing in the Petition persuasively explains whether this generic processor swapping switches the boot processor role. As we explained in our claim construction section, the term “boot processor” is not merely a label of convenience to describe the processor that happened to have earlier booted the system. The role of boot processor is specifically switched to the spare; it is a piece of information tracked by the system. As we explain below, Petitioner does not adequately address the transfer of this information to make the system aware of which processor has the boot processor role. Petitioner asserts that “the BSP flag” of the IA-32 system is used to “determine whether a processor is the boot processor.” Pet. 17–18. Petitioner here is relying on a register used in IA-32 processors to identify whether or not they are the boot processor. This register is used during booting so that only the boot processor boots the system. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 238–40, 710. This register does not appear to serve any further role, and Petitioner offers no persuasive evidence or argument that the processor register flag is exposed or copied to the operating system or APIC table. Petitioner’s proposed combination does not involve updating this register, nor does Petitioner explain how, even if the register were updated, it would meet the “switching” a “role of boot processor” in limitation [1d].” slip op. at 32

  • ExcludeOther

    “The USPTO has established Rules for objecting to and challenging evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. This process sets various timeframes and permits briefing and curative actions, all of which are designed to crystallize 5 We follow the parties’ convention of citing to the later-added “Page X of Y” pagination rather than the native pagination. the issues and ensure a full and fair opportunity for the parties to be heard. See id. In this instance, Patent Owner’s evidentiary arguments regarding Exhibits 1008 and 1028 are untimely. Accordingly, we will not exclude Exhibits 1008 or 1028 on the basis of their authenticity, admissibility, or for any reason that should have been raised under the proper procedures. See, e.g., PO Resp. 7–8; PO Sur-reply 7–8; see also Pet. Reply 11 (asserting that “Patent Owner has not filed any objection to or a motion to exclude these references”). We consider Petitioner’s citations to these documents in our prior art analysis below. Notwithstanding, as is clear from our patentability analysis below, Exhibits 1008 and 1028 do not serve to demonstrate the unpatentability of any claim.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,624,302 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,624,302
• BMW Of North America, LLC v. Foras Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01346 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 were not shown unpatentable because the prior-art combinations did not establish transfer of the role of boot processor during system runtime.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner asserts that: A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’781 patent would have been a person with at least a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or equivalent, and at least two years of prior work experience with computer architecture, including experience relating to fault tolerant computer architecture, as of the earliest priority date of the ’781 patent—October 25, 2004. If a person did not have a bachelor’s degree, additional relevant and practical experience with fault tolerant computer systems could provide an acceptable substitute. Likewise, further education beyond a bachelor’s degree could compensate for a deficiency in practical experience. See EX2004, Declaration of Nigel A. Jones (“Jones”), ¶ 26. PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner further notes that its position is “similar, but not identical to, Petitioner’s [position]” but that “the analysis [of the claims] is identical for both proposed determinations.” Id. We agree that our analysis would not differ based on choosing one proposed level of skill over the other, but as the losing party, we select Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Accordingly, based on our analysis of the claims and specification, we determine that “logic . . . for transferring, during system runtime, the role of boot processor” means logic that causes the system to identify the spare processor as the boot processor (e.g., in a device tree) which then causes the spare processor to appear as the boot processor to the system during runtime. Ex. 1001, 5:39–55, 10:43–67 (describing why boot processors are treated differently even after the boot process has completed); compare id. at 9:37– 10:42 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a non-boot processor without using a spare), with id. at 10:43–11:42 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a boot processor using a spare because boot processors, during runtime, need special treatment); see also 15:21–42 (emphasizing that spares are only needed for recovering boot processors). We construe transferring a “role of boot processor” to mean transferring an identification in the system of which processor is the boot processor. This construction comports with the embodiments described in the specification. We do not adopt an additional requirement that this procedure also requires designating which processor will boot the system in the next reboot, which is not disclosed in the specification.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the clear support in the specification for the above interpretation, we see no need to resort to extrinsic evidence. Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“If the meaning of a claim term is clear from the intrinsic evidence, there is no reason to resort to extrinsic evidence.”) (citing Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., 823 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Extrinsic evidence may not be used ‘to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.’” (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324)). In general, the cited portions of testimony from the declarants from both parties in the briefs do little more than point to the portions of the ’781 patent described above or argue about what a boot processor does during booting. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2–8. The specification makes clear that it is focused on the role of boot processor during runtime because of problems encountered during runtime; it is not focused on the boot processor during booting. Ex. 1001, 5:39–55, 10:43–67. Thus, the testimony about what a boot processor does during booting, or that the primary function of the boot processor is to boot, is not particularly pertinent, and does not undo the unambiguous discussion in the ’781 patent.” slip op. at 27

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “whether they are the boot processor or not (Ex. 1008, 238, 710), Petitioner does not explain how such information is exposed to the BIOS or operating system, nor how it is changed during runtime, after its purpose has been fulfilled. In sum, even if Petitioner’s proposed combination swaps the spare processor for the processor that booted the system, Petitioner’s proposed combination does not appear to transfer the role of boot processor to the spare processor. At best, Petitioner’s proposed combination transfers the tasks of one processor to another. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 15 (Fox describing its disclosure as “updat[ing] the ‘active’ processor list” and “[re-]allocat[ing] the threads that were running on the failing processor”), 46 (transferring “processes (instructions, threads, etc.) initially allocated to the failing processor” to the spare processor)). Of the art of record, we are only aware of the ’781 patent transferring a designation of which processor is the boot processor during the swap to a spare processor. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:43– 55, 11:10–12, 16:19–21, 17:51–55; claims 1, 9, 16, 25. In conclusion, we find that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, how the prior art teaches “transferring” a “role of boot processor” as required by limitation 1[c].” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 7,627,781 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,627,781
• Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00818 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–23 were not shown unpatentable over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan because the combination did not teach comparing desired and interferer signal strengths.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Behbahani teaches “comparing the strength of the desired signal to the strength of the interfere signal,” as recited in limitation 1(a). See PO Resp. 68–69; Sur-reply 21–23. Although Petitioner argues that Behbahani “expressly teaches comparing the desired and interferer signal strengths,” Petitioner does not cite to sufficient evidence in support of this statement. Pet. 38. The basis of Petitioner’s argument is that Behbahani teaches the same process for determining signal strengths as shown in Figure 4 of the ’202 patent. Figure 4 of the ’202 patent is reproduced below: Figure 4 shows, among other things, signal strength indicator circuits 440 and 450 connected to input line 410 and output line 460, on either side of gain element 420 and filter 430. Ex. 1001, 6:53–57. The input signal on input line 410 is shown as desired signal 412 and interferers 464 and 466. Id. at 59–61. Figure 4 is further described as follows. The signal strength indicators 440 and 450 do not provide information as to the relative sizes of the desired and interfering signals. Rather, a cumulative signal level is provided at their outputs. For example, the first signal strength indicator 440 outputs a level corresponding to the sum of desired signal 412 and interfering signals 414 and 416, while the second signal strength indicator 450 provides a signal level corresponding to the sum of desired signal 462 and interfering signals 464 and 466. In this specific example, the gain of the gain and filter circuit combinations is shown as approximately one, while the interfering signals 414 and 416 signal levels are reduced. A comparison of the signal levels provided by the signal strength indicators 440 and 450 indicates that much of the combined received signal on line 410 has been filtered. Accordingly, it may be deduced that large interfering signals present at the input are being filtered by the filter 430. From this information, as will be shown in greater detail below, the bias, impedance, and gain of the gain stage 420 and filter 430 combination may be optimized to reduce power dissipation. Ex. 1001, 6:61–7:13 (emphasis added). In other words, Figure 4 shows a comparison of a sum of the desired and interferer signals output from the strength indicator circuits, not a comparison of the strength of the desired signal and the strength of the interferer signal, as required by the claim language. See Sur-reply 22–23. The ’202 patent describes Figure 4 as “an embodiment,” and claims are not limited to specific embodiments described in the specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner even admits that Figure 4 “compar[es] a cumulative signal strength at a first node to a cumulative signal strength at a second node.” Pet. 36 (emphasis added). In the Reply, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner “ignores the” slip op. at 33

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), a reply “may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” We agree with Petitioner, for the reasons stated in the Opposition, that the arguments in the Reply and Reply declaration testimony are responsive to arguments raised in the Patent Owner Response. See Opp Mot. 7–12 (explaining the positions taken in the Petition, Patent Owner’s arguments in Response, and the arguments presented in Reply); see Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1008–1009 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner does not provide a new theory of unpatentability; rather, Petitioner responds and elaborates on the theory presented in the Petition to explain why Patent Owner’s arguments are incorrect. E.g., Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1081–82 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reasoning that rebuttal evidence should be responsive such that it is offered “to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the evidence of the adverse party”). “[T]he introduction of new evidence in the course of the trial is to be expected in [IPR] trial proceedings” and permissible “as long as the opposing party is given notice of the evidence and an opportunity to respond to it.” Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P’ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We also note that our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) states that In most cases, the Board is capable of identifying new issues or belatedly presented evidence when weighing the evidence at the close of trial, and disregarding any new issues or belatedly presented evidence that exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply. As such, striking the entirety or a portion of a party's brief is an exceptional remedy that the Board expects will be granted rarely. CTPG at 80, 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019). We follow that guidance here. Further, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Abidi’s testimony as a co- author of Behbahani is “self-serving and unsupported.” Mot. 6–7. The fact that Dr. Abidi is a co-author of Behbahani, as well as Petitioner’s expert, is not, in and of itself, sufficient to discredit Dr. Abidi’s testimony. The CTPG provides that “[t]he Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony.” CTPG 35. We are capable of discerning from the testimony and the evidence presented whether Dr. Abidi’s testimony should be entitled to any weight, either as a whole or with regard to specific issues. We will weigh the testimony on an issue-by-issue basis as appropriate. Moreover, to the extent that Patent Owner has pointed out the inadequacies of Dr. Abidi’s testimony, we are also capable of noting those inadequacies and weighing that testimony accordingly. For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s motion to strike is denied.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We also disagree with Petitioner that “Dr. Abidi provided well- reasoned analysis that Behbahani teaches determining and comparing desired and interferer signal strengths.” Reply 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 179– 181). We have reviewed the Dr. Abidi’s testimony cited in the Petition and Reply for limitation 1(a) (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95, 96, 113–120, 179–181; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 12–16), and we disagree that Dr. Abidi provided well-reasoned analysis that Behbahani teaches comparing desired signal strengths with interferer signal strengths. Rather, Dr. Abidi’s testimony focuses on determining or measuring desired and interferer signal strengths, generally simply repeats what is in the Petition, and only provides a conclusory assertion that Behbahani expressly teaches comparing the strengths of the desired and interferer signals without providing any explanation. See TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”). Accordingly, Dr. Abidi’s supporting testimony is also deficient. 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.”). As Patent Owner points out, the only comparison mentioned by Petitioner in Behbahani is to derive the strength of the interferer signal. Sur-reply 22 (citing Pet. 38–39); Ex. 1004, 1207 (“[B]y comparing the signal level at the input and the output of the digital filter (DI and DO), the relative strength of the out-of-channel signal that passes through the analog filter is calculated”). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons we determine that Petitioner has not shown that Behbahani teaches limitation 1(a).” slip op. at 36

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. At the institution stage, we did not see a material difference in the proposals given that both parties also indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, and thus adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 11. We requested that the parties address during trial if either believed that the choice of one proposal over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis. Id. Neither party has done so. Accordingly, because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision was incorrect, and because neither party has challenged our finding, we maintain our adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 10,524,202 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,524,202
• Visa, Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 22, 2025 · IPR2024-00488 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable because the Petition did not establish the claimed second OVER file over Oborne or a sufficient basis to combine Stafford and Purves.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. Inst. Dec. 9–13 (referring to the ’854 patent Specification, the language of claim 1, and Dr. Shamos’s testimony). However, we did not determine whether an “OVER file” included “tokens” as a general matter, or further elaborate on what additional characteristics might be required to qualify as an “OVER file,” because it was not necessary for purposes of Institution. Id. Moreover, we determined that Petitioner had made a sufficient showing that Oborne’s tokens qualified as “OVER files.” Id. at 11, 24–31. Patent Owner argues that no construction is required, but, regardless, “the claims may be confirmed under the Board’s construction.” PO Resp. 11; Sur-reply 1. Petitioner also does not dispute our preliminary construction. Reply 1. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is treating the Institution Decision’s construction “as requiring that the virtual representation itself (not merely the OVER file) be used for verification of the credential,” even though “the claims impose no such requirement on the virtual representation.” Reply 1–2 (citing PO Resp. 49–50). “For example,” Petitioner asserts, “verification in subsequent claim elements involves the OVER file, and while the OVER file ‘compris[es]’ the virtual representation, it may encompass other things, as PO’s expert admits.” Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1047, 30:16–31:24; Ex. 1048 ¶ 27). We will consider this issue further below when construing the term “verified by an issuing agency.” Based on the full trial record, we maintain our determination in the” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “In its Response, Patent Owner stated that it “agrees in substance with the Board’s construction” of this term, and clarified its understanding of that construction as requiring that “the issuing agency has verified the ‘virtual representation’ (and not the ‘credential’) to be ‘a first official representation of the original credential.’” PO Resp. 11–12. In its Reply, Petitioner points to Patent Owner’s reliance on an example in the ’854 patent Specification involving the checking of a driver’s license identification number against a DMV database to show verification of information in an OVER File generation request. Reply 2 (citing PO Resp. 14–16; Ex. 1002, 6:35–39, 6:54–65). Based on this portion of the Patent Owner Response, as well as portions of Dr. Malek’s deposition, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner “admits that a virtual representation of the credential may be ‘verified by an issuing agency’ by checking credential data against an issuing agency database.” Id. (citing Ex. 1047, 37:24–41:1, 41:2–22). In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner misinterprets its discussion of the DMV example, and contends that what Patent Owner was actually arguing based on that example is that the “credential” (the “OVER file”) is verified, not that “credential data” is verified. PO Sur-reply 1–3. After considering the full trial record, we adhere to the construction in our Institution Decision interpreting the claim language at issue “to require that an issuing agency ha[s] verified a virtual representation in an OVER file as being an official representation of a credential.” Inst. Dec. 15–16. In light of Patent Owner’s statements in its Sur-reply, we further clarify that this construction encompasses (1) considering the OVER file as the credential and verifying the OVER file, or (2) verifying a virtual representation of the credential contained within the OVER file.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner “agrees with [Petitioner’s proposed] definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 37–41). In the Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art to be reasonable and consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the prior art of record. Inst. Dec. 8. Given that Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, we continue to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Although we agree with Petitioner that Oborne teaches that “‘device fingerprinting may be utilized’ to provide ‘additional security’ for use of Oborne’s tokens,” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 26 (emphasis added)), we do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments related to “device fingerprinting.” Petitioner also relies on testimony from Dr. Shamos to support its position. However, Dr. Shamos’s cited testimony in paragraph 239 merely repeats what is stated in the Petition, does not provide citation to any other evidence of record, and does not provide any further explanation as to why one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use device fingerprinting to tie a given token to a given device such that the token for the second device would be invalid in the first device. Ex. 1005 ¶ 239. Dr. Shamos refers to Oborne’s disclosures on “digital fingerprinting” and a client’s MAC address in the token data structure. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 26, 47). We have considered Petitioner’s arguments in light of Oborne’s disclosure, but find Dr. Malek’s responsive testimony to be more persuasive. We agree with Dr. Malek that, in Oborne, “device fingerprinting simply refers to identifying a device and the user associated with that device.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 111. Specifically, paragraph 26 of Oborne (quoted above) discloses authentication of a user, where “device fingerprinting” is utilized to verify a user’s identity where a user exclusively uses a client device such as a smartphone or laptop computer. Ex. 1011 ¶ 26 (emphasis added). The use of the device fingering for determining the device identity in order to authenticate a user is corroborated by the disclosures in paragraph 47 of Oborne which refer, in part, to the “<client_details” which can include a “<client_type>smartphone” and “client_fingerprint>font list, MAC address, memory size, memory.” Id. ¶ 47 (emphasis added). So, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, we do not discern any disclosure in Oborne that “device fingerprinting” ties a token to a particular device. See Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 26, 47. Rather, Oborne’s disclosures support Dr. Malek’s testimony that “device fingerprinting could be used to limit a token to a set of fingerprinted devices, such as each device belonging to the user.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 113. Moreover, Petitioner (and Dr. Shamos’s) statement that “the first device’s fingerprint would not match” the fingerprint for the second device merely provides a possible outcome of device fingerprinting, but does not explain why one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use device fingerprinting to make the “second device’s token . . . invalid in the first device,” or make the “token for a second device . . . a new credential,” or point to disclosures in Oborne that would support such a motivation. Id. Thus, we find that Petitioner’s contentions as to this limitation lack sufficient specificity to explain how Oborne teaches the limitation. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Ultimately, it is the petitioner’s burden to present a clear argument.”); Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’ ” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). We further agree with Patent Owner that Oborne’s disclosure of” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 9,954,854 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,954,854
• AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. Daingean Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00402 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 10,841,958 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,841,958
• Nearmap US, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00735 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable because the Snavely-based combinations did not teach a “primary oblique image” as construed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s construction of the term “primary oblique image” as “a displayed oblique image that can be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images.” This construction is supported by the ’518 patent Specification, which includes a listing of “Terminology” that contains the following definition for the term “primary oblique image”: Primary oblique image—a displayed oblique image that can be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images. The primary oblique image can also be a master image. Ex. 1001, 6:25:31–34.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the proposed combination includes a “primary oblique image” as properly construed. As discussed above, we construe the term “primary oblique image” to require “a displayed oblique image that can be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images.” See supra § II.A.1(b). In its papers, Petitioner does not demonstrate that Snavely discloses a “primary oblique image” that can be considered “in front of” the other displayed images. To the contrary, we agree with and find credible Dr. Bajaj’s testimony that the “main view” of Snavely’s Figure 5, which Petitioner points to as the “primary oblique image,” is “behind the other displayed images in overlay panes,” such as the information pane, thumbnail pane, and map pane, and “therefore, necessarily cannot be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 60; see Ex. 1004, Fig. 5; PO Resp. 26. Our conclusion is also supported by the fact that Snavely refers to the information, map, and thumbnail panes as “overlay panes.” Ex. 1004, 5 (“The components of this window are the main view, which fills the window, and three overlay panes: an information and search pane on the left, a thumbnail pane along the bottom, and a map pane in the upper-right corner.”). We agree with and find credible Dr. Bajaj’s testimony that Snavely’s description of these panes as “overlay” panes confirms that “the main view image is behind the images shown in the map pane, the information pane, and the thumbnail pane.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 61 (citing Ex. 1004, 5). Additional support is found in Dr. Forsyth’s deposition testimony, where he explained that one of ordinary skill would have understood “overlay panes” to be “on top of” a main display:” slip op. at 38

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “E. Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Exclude Patent Owner filed a Motion to Strike certain portions of the Third Munford Declaration (Exhibit 1020) and its Appendices, which Petitioner submitted to show that Snavely and Irani were publicly accessible before the critical date of the ’518 patent. Paper 30. Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Exclude certain Appendices of the Second Munford Declaration (Exhibit 1016) and Third Munford Declaration, which Petitioner also submitted to show public accessibility of Snavely and Irani. Paper 35. Because, as discussed above, we find that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Snavely, Balfour, Irani, and Yelton, we need not reach whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Snavely and Irani were publicly accessible before the critical date. We, therefore, deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,593,518 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,593,518
• Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00069 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11, 12, 26, and 27 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because Petitioner did not establish motivation to modify Obhan to deny network attach.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Ex. 1005, 6:5–16 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 95. However, even assuming that Petitioner is correct, and denying network attach is one of a finite number of ways to deny access, this is not sufficient to show that denying access would be accomplished through denying network attach in Obhan’s system. In other words, Petitioner’s proposed rationale is too general, and is untethered from the disclosure in Obhan.” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “registered subscribers, or renders it impossible to modify Obhan’s system to deny attach of nonregistered users”). Petitioner also attempts to broaden Obhan’s disclosure to include unregistered subscribers by arguing that Obhan’s discussion of registered subscribers is not in the context of denying access, but rather, is only in the context of monitoring network load. See Reply 22; Tr. 16:6–11, 20:18–20. However, Petitioner fails to provide persuasive support that Obhan is concerned with unregistered subscribers in any context. Petitioner cites to deposition testimony from Mr. Obhan and Dr. Pachamanov (Reply 21), purportedly supporting that the Obhan reference is not limited to any particular type of subscriber, but we do not find the cited testimony persuasive, particularly in light of what the Obhan reference discloses. Although Petitioner is correct that Obhan does not expressly state that it is only concerned with registered subscribers (Reply 21), we are not persuaded that silence implies that unregistered subscribers are a consideration in Obhan. See International Bus. Machines Corp. v. Iancu, 759 F. App’x 1002, 1010–12 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2019) (unpublished) (concluding that the fact that a reference was silent on an issue “would not alone support a finding that there was no user authentication action in this scenario . . . . Silence in that sense would not by itself suffice for the Petitioner to meet its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was no user authentication action in this scenario. Nor would that burden be met merely by adding a finding that [the patent owner] did not prove the opposite, i.e., a finding of ‘the absence of sufficient evidence showing the provision or validation of a set credentials at the partner site’ in this scenario.”) Rather, Obhan’s disclosure (described in detail above in Section III.D.1) supports that Obhan is concerned with registered subscribers. For example, Obhan tracks spectrum usage in real-time, measuring both real-time usage of active subscribers, and potential usage of inactive subscribers that have registered with the network. Ex. 1005, 2:38–42. This information is delivered to an ACB, and is used in order to enforce operating rules over each corridor, such as limiting access to certain classes of subscribers or certain services during particular operating periods. Id. at 2:62–3:39, 5:32–65, 6:5–16, 11:35–50, 14:13–20, 14:64–15:3, 15:45–16:22, Figs. 9A, 9B. In other words, in Obhan’s system, registered subscribers create the actual and potential demand that contributes to limiting access to subscribers. Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that unregistered subscribers are a consideration in denying access in Obhan. Therefore, based on Obhan’s disclosure and the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner, and find persuasive Dr. Pachamov’s testimony, that Obhan’s system presumes that network attach has occurred. See PO Resp. 42–43; Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 93–95.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed6 proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Paper 9, 17–18. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art or offer an alternative. See generally PO Resp. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11

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

    “The only term for which parties propose construction is the term “register,” which is not recited in any of the challenged claims. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any terms, including “register,” for purposes of this Decision. 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 12

  Patent outcomesUS 9,253,637 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,253,637
• Honeywell International, Inc. / TCT Mobile (US) Inc. et al. v. 3g Licensing S.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2022 · IPR2021-00908 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–13, and 15–23 unpatentable as obvious over Philips46 alone or Philips46 and Nokia.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “A claim “shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Neither party proposes a construction of any claim terms. Pet. 29; PO Resp. 15. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art as including a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline with approximately two years of signal processing experience, which is supported by the declaration of Dr. Clark and the prior art of record. Inst. Dec. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–72). We also agreed with Patent Owner that a combination of more experience in the field and less education or more education and less experience in the field may also suffice. Id. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that it does not object to the level of ordinary skill we adopted in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 9. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adhere to the level of ordinary skill adopted in our Institution Decision, which is consistent with the disclosures of the ’718 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “First, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to swap the last two bits in the last row of the Philips46 table in order to provide more protection to the most significant bit (MSB). Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill would have understood that swapping the last two bits would have provided more protection to the MSB, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill would have believed that such a change would be desirable. Patent Owner introduces evidence from Dr. Smith and the ’781 patent that there was “a tradeoff between BER and RMS error” and that “efforts to minimize RMS error and to minimize BER produce conflicting and incompatible results.” Ex. 1001, 11:38–44; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 13, 43. These conflicting results are supported by the ’718 patent specification’s comparison of various codes (represented by C1, C2, embodiment 2, and embodiment 3), which found that the embodiment that had the best BER performance (C1) had the worst RMS error performance, and the embodiment with the best RMS error performance (embodiment 3) had the worst BER performance. Ex. 1001, 11:48–51, 11:58–61. We also find credible Dr. Smith’s testimony that “[a]dding all protection to just the MSB removes protection for all other bits,” which would be expected to reduce BER performance. Ex. 2006 ¶ 16.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,319,718 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,319,718
• Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2022 · IPR2021-00560 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–17 were not shown unpatentable under either obviousness ground because the evidence did not establish the claimed initial transmission of control information on the specified channels.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “itself. Claim 11 states that, after the secondary station receives the acknowledgement, “control information is initially transmitted on an uplink control channel and a downlink control channel” between the primary station and secondary station. The use of the word “initially” here signifies something that occurs first, or at the beginning.3 Thus, saying that control information is “initially transmitted on an uplink control channel and a downlink control channel” signifies that control information is transmitted for the first time on those particular uplink and downlink control channels. Thus, the plain meaning of the claim language indicates that, after the secondary station receives the acknowledgement, control information is transmitted for the first time on the claimed “uplink control channel” and “downlink control channel” “between the primary station and said secondary station.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lomp discloses that “subsequent to a reception of the acknowledgment by said secondary station, control information is initially transmitted on an uplink control channel and a downlink control channel between the primary station and said secondary station,” as required by claim 11(c) and comparable language in claim 15. As noted in Section II.A above, we have construed this claim language to require that, subsequent to a reception of the acknowledgement by said secondary station, control information is transmitted for the first time on the particular claimed uplink and downlink control channels between the primary station and the secondary station. We first turn to Petitioner’s reliance on Lomp’s disclosure in column 59, lines 44–48 that the primary station (RCS) “instructs the SU through the assigned logical control channel and causes a second 64 kb/s duplex link to be established between the RCS modem and the SU.” Petitioner has not pointed to any disclosure in Lomp of when this “assigned logical control channel” is established or whether any information is transmitted on this control channel before the instruction from the RCS to cause a second 64 kb/s link to be established. Indeed, during the hearing, counsel for Petitioner acknowledged that “Lomp doesn’t specify when the assigned logical control channel is established,” and that it is not certain what might have occurred on those channels before the instruction that Petitioner points to as the “initial” transmission of control information. Tr. 10:4–5, 57:4–9; see id. at 19:24–20:2, 57:9–14. Additionally, when asked which of Lomp’s channels would be used to establish the 64 kb/s link, Dr. Ding testified at his deposition that his understanding “is that Lomp did not specify which channel will be providing the instruction” to establish that link. Ex. 2012, 64:8–14. In light of this testimony, we find insufficient evidence that Lomp teaches that the instruction on the “assigned logical control channels” to establish the 64 kb/s link, which Petitioner points to as the “initial” transmission of control information, would have been the first time that control information was transmitted on those “assigned logical control channels,” as the claims require.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lomp discloses that “subsequent to a reception of the acknowledgment by said secondary station, control information is initially transmitted on an uplink control channel and a downlink control channel between the primary station and said secondary station,” as required by claim 11(c) and comparable language in claim 15. As noted in Section II.A above, we have construed this claim language to require that, subsequent to a reception of the acknowledgement by said secondary station, control information is transmitted for the first time on the particular claimed uplink and downlink control channels between the primary station and the secondary station. We first turn to Petitioner’s reliance on Lomp’s disclosure in column 59, lines 44–48 that the primary station (RCS) “instructs the SU through the assigned logical control channel and causes a second 64 kb/s duplex link to be established between the RCS modem and the SU.” Petitioner has not pointed to any disclosure in Lomp of when this “assigned logical control channel” is established or whether any information is transmitted on this control channel before the instruction from the RCS to cause a second 64 kb/s link to be established. Indeed, during the hearing, counsel for Petitioner acknowledged that “Lomp doesn’t specify when the assigned logical control channel is established,” and that it is not certain what might have occurred on those channels before the instruction that Petitioner points to as the “initial” transmission of control information. Tr. 10:4–5, 57:4–9; see id. at 19:24–20:2, 57:9–14. Additionally, when asked which of Lomp’s channels would be used to establish the 64 kb/s link, Dr. Ding testified at his deposition that his understanding “is that Lomp did not specify which channel will be providing the instruction” to establish that link. Ex. 2012, 64:8–14. In light of this testimony, we find insufficient evidence that Lomp teaches that the instruction on the “assigned logical control channels” to establish the 64 kb/s link, which Petitioner points to as the “initial” transmission of control information, would have been the first time that control information was transmitted on those “assigned logical control channels,” as the claims require.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lomp and Chen teach limitation 11(c) and the comparable limitation in claim 15. Petitioner’s arguments concerning Lomp are discussed above with respect to Ground 1. As to Chen, Petitioner identifies Chen’s feedback channels of the forward and reverse link as the claimed uplink and downlink control channels, but does not establish when control information is “initially transmitted” on those channels. Pet. 62 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 133). On the other hand, Dr. Lanning testifies that “[t]he control information that is exchanged in steps 330 and 350 of Chen is not the initial transmission of control information,” because “[s]uch initial control information would have been exchanged in Chen before the operation of Chen at the idle rate in step 310” in order to adjust the transmission power to an appropriate level for the idle rate. Ex. 2004 ¶ 276. We find Dr. Lanning’s testimony to be credible because it is consistent with Chen’s statement that “each base station must rapidly and accurately adjust the transmission power for the signals which it transmits to the mobile station,” and Chen’s description of a closed loop power control system for adjusting the transmission power by comparing measured power level against a threshold value, such that “if the power level is lower than desired, the base station increases the transmission power of its transmitted signals, otherwise the transmission power is decreased.” Ex. 1006, 1:56–59, 1:66–2:11; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 191–193.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,089,028 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,089,028
• Polycom, Inc. v. Directpacket Research, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2022 · IPR2019-01233 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–23 were not shown unpatentable over Ress or Ress and Doyle because the cited art did not teach receiving a multimedia data stream that includes media.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Having analyzed the record in view of our reviewing court’s directive, we determine on remand, for the reasons that follow, that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–23 of the ’588 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “protocols for media stream communications (Pet. 24; Ex. 1004, 1:20–24), but the operative issue as to limitation1[a] is whether Ress teaches that a multimedia data stream, including media, is received at the communication controller (call server). We have reviewed the evidence and argument provided by Petitioner during trial, and we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Ress teaches or suggests this limitation. PO Resp. 18–19. The evidence supports Patent Owner’s contention, referencing annotated Figure 3 reproduced below, that “Ress illustrates a ‘packetized media stream’ (in blue) communicated between gateways is not associated with the signaling messages (in red) communicated to the call server” and “[t]he ‘packetized media stream’ notably never reaches the call server 300 of Ress.” Id. at 14, 19.” slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that Petitioner presents new evidence and arguments post-appeal, which is impermissible. In its Opening Brief On Remand, Petitioner refers to multiple portions of Ress which had not been cited in either the Petition or Petitioner’s Reply. See Pet. Rem. Br. 1–6 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:62–65, 4:35–42, 7:49–53, 11:62–65, 12:3–9, 4:36–38, 12:6–12, 13:54–59, 12:25–29, 12:31–33, 18:21–24, 18:51–52, 19:6–12). Petitioner also refers to evidence that was cited in Petition and Reply but was not previously relied upon for any assertions related to any transmission of media to the call server in Ress. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 6:16–19, 10:45–49, 18:11–14, 12:13–17, 12:18–21, Figs. 7, 12–19).” slip op. at 19

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

    “protocols for media stream communications (Pet. 24; Ex. 1004, 1:20–24), but the operative issue as to limitation1[a] is whether Ress teaches that a multimedia data stream, including media, is received at the communication controller (call server). We have reviewed the evidence and argument provided by Petitioner during trial, and we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Ress teaches or suggests this limitation. PO Resp. 18–19. The evidence supports Patent Owner’s contention, referencing annotated Figure 3 reproduced below, that “Ress illustrates a ‘packetized media stream’ (in blue) communicated between gateways is not associated with the signaling messages (in red) communicated to the call server” and “[t]he ‘packetized media stream’ notably never reaches the call server 300 of Ress.” Id. at 14, 19.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,773,588 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,773,588

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.