• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2026 · IPR2025-00712 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 were not shown unpatentable because Walker was not prior art and Kelly did not teach limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii].

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “b) Walker Priority Date Under Dynamic Drinkware, the Petitioner is required to show that “the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application.” In re Riggs, 131 F.4th 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Thus, Petitioner must show that (1) at least one claim of Walker is supported by its provisional (U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/378,289 (the “’289PROV”) and (2) the specific subject matter relied upon as prior art is supported by the ’289PROV. Id. Petitioner does provide a detailed explanation about how the ’289PROV supports claim 1 of Walker. See Reply 5–10. However, as Patent Owner argues, Petitioner fails to show that the ’298PROV provides support for the specific subject matter relied on in Walker. See Sur-Reply 3–9. Petitioner only explains how the ’298PROV discloses “predetermined criteria” but does not provide any other explanation for how the other subject matter relied on in Walker is supported by the ’298PROV. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Walker is entitled a priority date before May 1, 2003. See Riggs, 131 F.3d at 1384 (noting while “a prior art patent or published application cannot be accorded the benefit of its provisional application’s filing date absent a showing that the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application,” the challenger must also show that “the specific portions of the patent specification identified and relied on” to demonstrate purported invalidity have written description support).” slip op. at 25

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

    “evidence that Kelly teaches limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. As Patent Owner persuasively argues, “the recorded information regarding particular game play events” of limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii] refers to “memory to . . . record game play information regarding particular game play events” in limitation 1[b.ii], but Petitioner does not map “the game play events” identified in limitation 1[b.ii] to limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. In its Reply, Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion, but largely reiterates its arguments from the Petition. However, none of these arguments or evidence demonstrates that the “game play events” in limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii] are same the “game play events” that are allegedly stored in limitation 1[b.ii]. Even if we accept Petitioner’s contention that it was not identifying button presses or the “game identifier,” but rather includes “game states and game events in the game process,” Petitioner provides no evidence or even arguments that what it has identified here relates to what it has identified for limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. See Pet. 29–33 (citing Ex. 1005, 25:23–24, 26:59–27:1, 32:27–33, 37:1–10, 38:66–39:7 40:33–45, 56:49–51, 57:27–33). For these reasons, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches or suggests limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kelly. 2. Claims 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 Claims 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 all depend (either directly or indirectly) from claim 1. See PO Resp. 16 (explaining that the arguments for independent claim 1 also apply to the dependent claims inherent the deficiencies asserted with respect to the independent claims). We find Patent Owner’s arguments availing, as explained above. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 would have been obvious over Kelly.” slip op. at 44

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “programmable variable parameter sets to achieve the mandated parameters,” we find that Patent Owner sufficiently explained “the notes from the 12/4/02 meeting reflect that the inventors proposed that their invention could raise the global payout percentage ‘to 75%’ – a mandated parameter – by ‘increas[ing] % of wins by the level 2,’ i.e., a secondary game level – a variable parameter.” See PO Resp. 28–32, 37, 38; Ex. 2016; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 23–24, 41–42; Ex. 2012 ¶ 90, 63–64. Indeed, Mr. Crevelt confirmed that that a POSITA would unequivocally regard disclosure of “win rate[s]” and “global payout percentage[s]” as disclosing the claimed “mandated parameters” that are achieved by utilizing variable parameters. See Ex. 2020, 15:7–18:4, 19:14–21:16, 24:25–25:15 (global payout percentages), 21:18– 24:24 (win rates).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 11,393,279 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,393,279
• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2026 · IPR2025-00708 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 were not shown unpatentable over Kelly or Walker and Schneier.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id. Based on the testimony of Mr. Crevelt, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering, with at least three years of experience in game development. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–65). Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Id. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted above is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’336 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the record. Patent Owner states that “[f]or the purposes of this response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ proposed level of skill, and under any level of skill a POSITA would not understand the asserted Grounds to raise any unpatentability issue,” and “this POR and supporting declarations apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” PO Resp. 8. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’336 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes in this case. See id. slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “b) Walker Priority Date Under Dynamic Drinkware, the Petitioner is required to show that “the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application.” In re Riggs, 131 F.4th 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Thus, Petitioner must show that (1) at least one claim of Walker is supported by its provisional (U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/378,289 (the “’289PROV”) and (2) the specific subject matter relied upon as prior art is supported by the ’289PROV. Id. Petitioner does provide a detailed explanation about how the ’289PROV supports claim 1 of Walker. See Reply 6–12. However, as Patent Owner argues, Petitioner fails to show that the ’298PROV provides support for the specific subject matter relied on in Walker. See Sur-Reply 3–8. Petitioner only explains how the ’298PROV discloses “predetermined criteria” but does not provide any other explanation for how the other subject matter relied on in Walker is supported by the ’298PROV. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Walker is entitled a priority date before May 1, 2003. See Riggs, 131 F.3d at 1384 (noting while “a prior art patent or published application cannot be accorded the benefit of its provisional application’s filing date absent a showing that the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application,” the challenger must also show that “the specific portions of the patent specification identified and relied on” to demonstrate purported invalidity have written description support).” slip op. at 24

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

    “We find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches limitation 1[f]. As Patent Owner persuasively argues, “the game play events” of limitation 1[f] refers to “game play events” in limitation 1[d], but Petitioner does not map “the game play events” identified in limitation 1[d] to limitation 1[f]. In its Reply, Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion, but merely reiterates its arguments from the Petition. See Reply 23–24, 26. However, none of these arguments or evidence demonstrates that the “game play events” in limitation 1[f] are same the “game play events” that are allegedly stored in limitation 1[d]. Even if we accept Petitioner’s contention that it was not identifying button presses, but rather includes “game states and game events in the game process,” Petitioner provides no evidence or even arguments that what it has identified here relates to what it has identified for limitation 1[f]. See Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1005, 25:23–24, 32:27–33, 40:33–45, 56:49–51). For these reasons, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches or suggests limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kelly. 2. Claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 Claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 all depend from claim 1. See PO Resp. 16 (explaining that the arguments for independent claim 1 also apply to the dependent claims inherent the deficiencies asserted with respect to the independent claims). We find Patent Owner’s arguments availing, as explained above. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 would have been obvious over Kelly.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,529,336 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,529,336
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01133 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 9, and 12–13 as anticipated by Weaver, and claims 6–8 and 10–11 as obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). In general, we agree with the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. In particular, Patent Owner proposes “at least a Bachelors’ degree in a field of engineering or physics,” which includes “electrical engineering or a comparable field of study” as Petitioner proposes. Pet. 4 (emphasis added); PO Resp. 10. We agree with Petitioner that by defining the engineering field as “electrical” or “comparable,” we can exclude engineering fields “having nothing to do with displays, such as biomedical, civil, chemical or environmental engineering.” Pet. Reply 1. Petitioner also proposes approximately “one or more years of professional experience” which includes Patent Owner’s “at least two years of professional experience.” Pet. 4; PO Resp. 10. Furthermore, both parties agree that “[a]dditional graduate education could [reduce . . . the time requirement] for professional experience.” Id. Thus, we adopt both parties’ proposed POSITA of having a Bachelors’ degree in electrical engineering or a comparable field of study, plus at least two years of professional experience, wherein additional graduate education could reduce the time requirement for professional experience. Id. Such proposal comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “The plain language in claim 1 of “auxiliary electrode” does not preclude that the “electrode” may be a power line, bus line, or resistor. Ex. 1001, 8:47–52. Nothing in the Specification clearly precludes “auxiliary electrode” from being a “bus line” or “power line,” as Patent Owner proposes. PO Resp. 25–27. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification discloses that “the power line ‘PL’ is shown in Figure 1, but the power line PL is not an electrode that is shown in Figure 2.” Id. at 26–27. Here, Patent Owner points to no portions in the Specification that provide the requisite “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” to warrant interpreting the claim language at issue as supporting Patent Owner’s contention that an auxiliary electrode cannot be a power line, bus line, or resistor. Id.; In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1984). That is, although Patent Owner points to Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification for support of its contention, Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification merely show various examples of power line and an auxiliary electrode. PO Resp. 26–27. Thus, although the referenced portions of the Specification discuss various examples wherein an auxiliary electrode may be implemented, nothing in these referenced portions of the Specification clearly precludes the “auxiliary electrode” from being a power line or any electrode that is “the road to get to an end point,” as Patent Owner contends. Id. Patent Owner points to no special definition, implicit or explicit, for “auxiliary electrode” that is set forth in the Specification which supports Patent Owner’s construction with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. In particular, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that “‘bus line 430’ is not an ‘auxiliary electrode’” (PO Resp. 28–33), because Patent Owner is relying on a claim construction of “auxiliary electrode” as precluding “essential” elements and requiring “more than the end structure of a conductor” (id.), that is not adopted by our construction discussed above. Here, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Weaver’s bus line 430 for providing the claimed “electrode,” that is “supplemental to other electrodes in the structure.” Pet. 18; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 26, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 92. We find availing Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that a POSITA would have understood that “anode 406 and bus line 430 are connected in parallel,” which means that “bus line 430 is a supplemental electrode that reduces the total resistance of the pixel structure.” Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94. Thus, we find availing Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that Weaver’s bus line 430 is an electrode supplemental to other electrodes in the structure that is electrically insulated from transistor 410 by passivation layer 409, wherein OLED 400, which includes cathode 422, organic layer 424, and anode 406, is disposed above bus line 430, and wherein anode 406 of OLED 400 is electrically connected to bus line 430 by via 428. Pet. 16–19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 89–94. That is, we find availing Petitioner’s contention that, like the ’509 patent’s auxiliary electrode 120, bus line 430 is electrically insulated from transistor 410, wherein OLED 400 is disposed above bus line 430 and anode 406 electrically connected with bus line 430. Compare Pet. 2–3 (annotated” slip op. at 26

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

    “We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that the proposed modifications to Weaver would involve changing the process. PO Resp. 33– 34. We agree with Petitioner, whose contentions are supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that “to provide additional components from the same layer is a layout change that a POSITA would have been able to perform without changing the process.” Pet. Reply 17–18 (citing Ex 1003 ¶ 157; Ex. 1020 ¶ 45). Further, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that POSITA would not have combined Weaver with Lee ’053, Song, Lee ’149, or Bae without the use of hindsight (PO Resp. 33–45), as Petitioner points out, Lee ’149, for example, “explicitly teaches that ‘the electrode pattern 45 serves to lower the resistance of the first electrode 41.” Pet. Reply 58 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 38). Similarly, Bae “explicitly teaches that the “auxiliary electrodes 139 contact the first electrode 132 to commonly apply a voltage to the sub-pixels” and “reduces the resistance of the first electrode.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 37, 59). As such, Petitioner’s proposed combinations are supported by at least by Lee ’149’s and Bae’s teachings of applying a second electrode to lower the resistance and voltage drop between anode 406 and the VDD line of Weaver. See, e.g., Ex. 1011 ¶ 38; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 37, 59. We are persuaded by Dr. Baker’s testimony that a POSITA would have understood that higher resistance between the power or ground line to the light emitting device would consume more power and require higher operating voltages, and thus, would have been motivated to implement the solutions of Lee ’053, Song, Lee ’149, or Bae to lower the resistance between anode 406 and voltage source VDD in Weaver. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145, 158, 184, 203. We agree with Petitioner, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success the combining the references as suggested, wherein such modification “involves modifications of only routine skill in the art,” which “involve known method,” and “would have yielded predictable results. Pet. 42, 48–49, 59, 67–68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145, 158, 184, 203. That is, we determine that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning explaining why it would have been obvious to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Based on the complete record presented, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6–8 would have been obvious over the combination of Weaver and Lee ’053 or alternatively over the combination of Weaver and Song, and that claims 10 and 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Weaver and Lee ’149 or alternatively over the combination of Weaver and Bae.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 9,263,509 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,263,509
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01130 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable over the instituted grounds; claims 7–9 were not shown unpatentable because their scope could not be ascertained.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “After the hearing, with our authorization,1 Patent Owner moved to dismiss this proceeding because, according to Patent Owner, the Petition did not identify all real parties-in-interest as required be 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). 1 IPR2024-01131, Paper 43, 45:1–8. Paper 42. Petitioner opposed the motion. Paper 44. We denied the motion. Paper 46.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “arguments and evidence in support of its proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, we determine that Petitioner’s definition is too broad. Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “approximately one or more years of professional experience with electronic and optoelectronic system design.” Pet. 3. But Petitioner does not appear to dispute the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Bretschneider, that “the field of optoelectronics” is “broad and expansive and encompasses solar cells, optical fiber, and any application of LEDs, not just the design of LED packages.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 78. Therefore, one having experience with optoelectronic system design would not necessarily have experience designing LED backlights for LCD displays. We have also carefully considered Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence in support of its proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In light of our analysis of the prior art and the AAPA, we determine that Patent Owner’s requirement of “at least one year of practical experience in design of LED packages and one year of practical experience in design of thermal management systems for LEDs” is not sufficiently precise. Patent Owner does not specify that the required experience is in the context of designing LED backlights for LCD displays. One having this experience would necessarily have experience addressing thermal-management concerns associated with such backlights.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Because Dr. Baker does not have the requisite experience designing LED backlights for LCD displays, he is not qualified to offer expert testimony from the vantage point of a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing LED backlights for LCD displays. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022).” slip op. at 23

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

    “Neither party asserts that “connecting” is a term of art requiring expert testimony to construe. We agree with Petitioner that “connecting” should be construed consistently with the “fastener” term, because it is the “fastener” (or the second portion thereof) to which the circuit board is “connecting.” Because the parties agree that “fastener” is “[a] feature that attaches or holds something in place, “connecting” means “attaching or holding.”” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,168,842 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,168,842
• Ascend Elements, Inc. v. Duesenfeld GmbHInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · PGR2025-00037 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–14 because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–14 of the ’463 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–14 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, material science, chemical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 to 3 years of academic or industry experience in the recycling or processing of lithiumion batteries. Additional formal education focusing on processing of lithium batteries may substitute for practical experience and additional practical experience can substitute for less education.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner does not contest this definition of a person of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 11. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as, on the present record, it appears consistent with the ’463 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “distinct from “comminute[ion],” Petitioner offers only the testimony of its expert, Mr. Juzkow, who equates Tomioka’s “cutting” with “comminute[ion].” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 121. However, Mr. Juzkow provides insufficient reasoning to support his conclusion, particularly given the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence discussed above. In contrast, Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Dantam, provides extensive reasoning, supported by citations to other evidence, to support his conclusion that Tomioka’s “dismantling” is not the claimed “comminution.” Thus, we give more weight to Mr. Dantam’s testimony than Mr. Juzkow’s testimony. Weighing this evidence all together, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that it is more likely than not that Tomioka’s teaches the claimed comminution under Petitioner’s first theory.” slip op. at 15

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

    “obvious. Pet. 34–35. However, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has also failed to show that it is more likely than not that Tomioka renders this limitation obvious. See Prelim. Resp. 28–31. To begin with, Petitioner’s contentions lack sufficient reasoning explaining why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Tomioka in the manner proposed. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Petitioner merely asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art could use the roller system in place of the dismantling disclosed for the embodiments in Figures 19 and 20. On this record, we find this bare contention insufficient. actual disclosure of Tomioka. The rollers in Tomioka are used to separate the “battery body” from the “resin package enclosing the battery body,” and Tomioka specifically discloses that this technique is designed to “avoid damaging the battery body.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25, 26, 29; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 72–73. Thus, there is a significant difference between what Tomioka teaches and what Petitioner proposes to use the roller system to do. In addition, as Patent Owner points out, Tomioka specifically discloses there are risks associated with mechanically crushing battery packs, such as “risk of sparking due to residual voltage if the battery units are damaged in the process.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 5. Although we do not agree with Patent Owner that this amounts to a “teaching away,” see In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994), we do believe that this teaching suggests a trade off that should be weighed in determining whether to make the modification, see Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, Petitioner has failed to account adequately, if at all, for this trade off. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that it is more likely than not that Tomioka accounts for the claimed “comminuting.”” slip op. at 15

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 12,119,463
• Fox Factory, Inc. v. Sram, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00492 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 7, 8, and 10–12 are unpatentable over Yi, JP’279, and Nagai; the Board did not reach the Fox-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the full record, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’207 patent and the asserted prior art. PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 48). Our analysis below, however, would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, because it specifies experience in design work related to bicycle suspension technology, instead of the more general design of vehicle components or like technology.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant has a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering with “over 30 years of experience in teaching and directing research related to mechanical engineering and precision machine design.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 4. Based on the full record, we find that his experience “related to mechanical engineering and precision machine design” sufficiently meets or exceeds “experience in design of vehicle components or like technology,” as proposed by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 17). Petitioner’s declarant would, thus, be a person of ordinary skill in the art under either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we see no reason to give less weight to the opinions of Petitioner’s declarant. See also Tr. 39:21–40:22 (confirming that the argument is about how much weight to give to the testimony).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner states that “[n]o terms need construction to resolve the controversy in this forum.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). “Patent Owner agrees that the ’207 Patent’s claim terms require no special claim construction.” PO Resp. 16. Based on the full record, we determine that express claim interpretation is not necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. 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 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “d) Petitioner’s Asserted Reason for Combining Petitioner argues that Yi, JP’279, and Nagai are in the same technical field. Pet. 70 (citing Ex. 1006, code (57), 1:7–8; Ex. 1007, 1; Ex. 1008, 1:10–13). We agree, and find, that Yi, JP’279, and Nagai are in the same field of endeavor. Ex. 1006, code (57), 1:7–8; Ex. 1007, 1; Ex. 1008, 1:10– 13. Patent Owner does not dispute that the references are analogous art. See PO Resp.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 7,147,207 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,147,207
• Fox Factory, Inc. v. Sram, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00491 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14–18, 20, 22, 24, 26–29, 31, 33–38, 40, 42, 44, 46–49, 51, 53, and 56–64 are unpatentable as obvious over Denk and Moechnig, with Schroeder for claims 31, 51, …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties’ proposals require a Bachelor’s degree or a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering but differ on the number of years of experience (“1–2 years of experience” versus “three years’ experience”) and from where the experience comes (“design work related to optimal mechanical and structural design” or “design of mechanical elements and structures” versus “vehicle component design and like technology” or “design of vehicle components or like technology”). Pet. 8; PO Resp. 14. Based on the full record, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’993 patent and the asserted prior art. PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 48). Our analysis below, however, would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, because it specifies experience in “optimal mechanical and structural design,” which would be a part of the “design of vehicle components and like technology.”” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant has a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering with “over 30 years of experience in teaching and directing research related to mechanical engineering and precision machine design.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 4. Based on the full record, we find that his experience “related to mechanical engineering and precision machine design” sufficiently meets or exceeds “experience in design of vehicle components or like technology,” as proposed by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 14). Petitioner’s declarant would, thus, be a person of ordinary skill in the art under either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we see no reason to give less weight to the opinions of Petitioner’s declarant. See also Tr. 39:21–40:22 (confirming that the argument is about how much weight to give to the testimony).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner states that “[n]o terms need construction to resolve the controversy in this forum.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). We did not need to interpret expressly any claim term for institution. Inst. Dec. 14. “Patent Owner agrees that the ’993 Patent’s claim terms require no special claim construction for purposes of denying this Petition.” PO Resp. 13. Petitioner states that “a vertical plane of travel of the bicycle” and “a thickness of the wall at any point in the lower section of the body varying as a function of the cross-sectional angle of the point relative to the plane of travel” have been construed in related litigation. Pet. Reply 2–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:8–14, Fig. 1; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 18, 20, 22, 24, 52–53; Ex. 1025, 8, 10; Ex. 2021 ¶ 43). Petitioner, however, contends that “the Board need not expressly construe these terms.” Id. at 2. Based on the full record, we determine that express claim interpretation is not necessary to determine whether Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. 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 11

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

    “(c) Petitioner Shows a Motivation to Combine Because Petitioner cites a portion of Denk that states, “for the same overall strength and rigidity, the weight may be reduced, or for the same weight, the strength and rigidity may be significantly increased in the load direction specified by the design,” we find that Denk provides a motivation to use its tubular component in the bicycle of Moechnig. Pet. 13–14; Ex. 1006, col. 2. We also credit Petitioner’s testimonial evidence regarding the motivation to combine because the record supports it. Ex. 1003 ¶ 57; Ex. 1006, cols. 1–2; Ex. 1007, 1:10–14; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1, 9, 49; Ex. 1010, 6:22–26. The record shows that lightweight components were desirable. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, col. 1; Ex. 1008 ¶ 1. We also agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reduced weight or improved strength relative to Moechnig, because Denk describes reducing weight or increasing strength as “specified by the design,” indicating that it is a matter of ordinary skill in the art to achieve less weight or more strength when applying Denk to Moechnig. Ex. 1006, col. 2. how Denk combined with Moechnig would have reduced weight or increased strength, because Denk itself indicates it would have done so. PO Resp. 24–25; Ex. 1006, col. 2 (“for the same overall strength and rigidity, the weight may be reduced”). We also do not agree with Patent Owner that “Denk provides no indication that it would be more lightweight than a standard steerer tube with equal wall thickness and circular profile,” because Denk provides an indication. PO Resp. 25; Ex. 1006, col. 2. Based on the full record, Petitioner persuades us, and we determine, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Denk and Moechnig.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,328,993 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,328,993
• Nuvei Technologies, Inc. v. Autoscribe CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00089 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Nuvei did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–27 would have been obvious over either asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “providing” negative limitation of independent claim 1, and the similar negative limitations of independent claims 8, 15, 23, and 25. Accordingly, Nuvei has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertions that the subject matter of independent claims 1, 8, 15, 23, and 25 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Stringfellow and Kloster.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the art “would have had at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or comparable field of study, and (2) at least two years’ experience working with and programming networked computer systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 36). Nuvei also argues that “[a]dditional education might substitute for some experience, and vice versa.” Id. In the Preliminary Response, Autoscribe does not address the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Nuvei’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with both the ’621 patent and the asserted prior art, and it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “The supporting testimony from Nuvei’s declarant, Dr. Almeroth, on these issues fare no better. Dr. Almeroth provides no additional explanation beyond the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition to support Nuvei’s assertion that Kloster does not provide the payment data token to the payer during its token retrieval functions. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 100.” slip op. at 24

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

    “argument that Kloster does not teach the “without providing” negative limitation required by each independent claim. Nuvei appears to contend that Kloster teaches this limitation in two different ways—namely, through either a “call back URL” or “API calls by the merchant.” Pet. 50–51 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 15, 23) (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 24). We address Nuvei’s contentions in turn.” slip op. at 21

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,620,621
• DBR Finance, Inc. v. Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00291 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–19 not unpatentable because Petitioner did not prove the proposed Whybrew–Strength combinations disclosed the claimed mesh panels with spaced holes.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We question, therefore, whether someone having an education in textile engineering or physics, but no experience in the field of hunting blinds, would be consistent with the level of skill portrayed by the ’535 Patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note that Petitioner’s expert’s experience, education, and qualifications are rooted in textiles, fibers and physics, and sophisticated subjects related thereto. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–20. But his deposition revealed that he has little or no experience in the field of hunting blinds. See Ex. 2038, 8–14.5 5 The same might be said of Patent Owner’s expert. See Ex. 2031, ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 1023, 16. However, our obviousness analysis leaned lightly, if at all, on her declarations and testimony.” slip op. at 12

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

    “1. Mesh Material In the Petition, Petitioner asks that “the term ‘mesh material’” be interpreted in accordance with “a plain and ordinary usage.” Pet. 25. Per Petitioner, the “plain and ordinary” meaning of the term “mesh material” is “a woven material of open texture with spaced holes therein.” Id. Per Petitioner, “[o]ther typical terms used to describe a mesh-like material” are “a screen material, or a netting material, which are believed to be synonyms.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that a mesh material would have an open texture with spaced holes therein. See PO Resp. 18. We find that Petitioner’s proposed construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s specification. See Ex. 1001. The drawings in the ’535 Patent depict the mesh material 26 as having an array of uniformly spaced circular holes forming a net-like structure (see id., Fig. 1A, 1B, 4, 9) or an array of uniformly spaced rectangular openings (see id. Fig. 8) forming a screen-like structure. The embodiments of the mesh material 26 listed in the ’535 Patent (e.g., a mesh banner material, scrims, a network of fibers, etc.) are materials having net-like or screen-like structures. See id. at 6:47–7:28.6” slip op. at 14

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

    “Our construction aligns with the claim language; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1001, 10:4–19. The independent challenged claims set forth “one or more panels of mesh material” and then set forth “said one or more panels comprising: a first side with a camouflage pattern; and a second side with a dark color coating.” Id. at 10:4–11. The recited “said one or more panels” corresponds to the previously recited “one or more panels of mesh material,” not panels comprising a material that was only a “mesh” prior to printing/coating. See id. Also, the independent challenged claims set forth that “the one or more panels of the mesh material define an outer surface of the camouflage structure.” See id. at 10:18–19, 1:23–24 (emphasis added). And the panel(s) defining a hunting blind’s outer surface would include the dark color coating. Our construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s specification; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1001. The ’535 Patent repeatedly describes the relevant panel material in the hunting blind (i.e., post printing/coating) as a mesh material. See id., Abst., 1:19–5:34, 6:47–7:28, 9:16–54, Figs. 1A, 1B, 9. The ’535 Patent expressly describes and depicts the mesh material 26 as including the camouflage pattern and the dark-color coating. See id. at 1:52–56, 3:24–25, 3:31–33, Figs. 1A, 1B. The ’535 Patent says that “panels” of this coated mesh material 26 “are used to form” a hunting blind. Id. at 3:22–26. The ’535 Patent says that “[m]esh material is presented for a hunting blind with a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a second side with a color coating.” Id. at Abst. The ’535 Patent says that “mesh material of interwoven fabric is provided for a hunting blind including a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a second side with a dark color coating.” Id. at 1:19–22; see also id. at 1:44–49. Our construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s prosecution history; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1006. As mentioned above, throughout prosecution of the ’535 Patent, the same prior art material was mapped to the claimed panel(s) of mesh material. See Ex. 1006, 64–72, 122–106. The mapped-to prior art mesh material was described during prosecution as an “interwoven fabric” with “a pattern” printed on a first side and “a dark color coating” on a second side. Ex. 1006, 64; see also id. at 122. And the mapped-to prior art mesh material (i.e., which included not only the interwoven fabric but also the printed pattern and the dark color coating) had a “net-like structure” with an array of uniformly spaced “net holes” that are “not closed.” Ex. 2021, 4:1–5, see also id. at 2:58–3:6, 4:34–45, Figs. 1, 2a. Thus, we understand that claimed panel(s) of mesh material must have” slip op. at 17

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

    “However, Patent Owner does not bear the burden of proving Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes. Rather, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes. And Petitioner’s arguments that undermine Patent Owner’s position that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes, concurrently undermine Petitioner’s position that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes. Per Petitioner, “Strength is silent on whether visible holes exist in the fabric” (Pet. Reply 8) and “the Strength reference doesn’t discuss anything about holes” (Tr. 14). Petitioner’s expert testified that it was his “understanding that Strength is silent” on “whether or not there are holes.” Ex. 2038, 44. Petitioner contends that Strength’s silence about the presence/ absence of holes hinders Patent Owner from proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes. See Pet. Reply 8. We agree. But this same silence likewise hinders Petitioner from proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 11,399,535 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,399,535
• Babybjörn AB v. The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2025 · IPR2025-00111 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR on all challenged claims under § 314(a), finding the reasons offered for a second parallel petition unpersuasive.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “petitioner files two or more petitions challenging the same patent, we consider guidance in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, which provides that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations” and that “multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.” Trial Practice Guide 59 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“TPG”). In such circumstances, a petitioner should provide: (1) a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits, if the Board uses its discretion to institute any of the petitions, and (2) a succinct explanation of the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). TPG 59–60. The Trial Practice Guide provides that “the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary” and that “two petitions by a petitioner may be needed, although this should be rare.” Id. at 59.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Petitioner that the still-open outcome of Lynk Labs in any way impacts the availability of Lundh in either the 110 IPR or this proceeding.10 Critically, in Lynk Labs, the Federal Circuit examined the prior art date of a U.S. patent application publication under pre-AIA § 102(e)(1) because the challenged patent in that case had a priority date in February 2004—well before the 2013 effective date of the AIA’s revisions to §§ 102, 103—such that the pre-AIA versions of § 102 determined the” slip op. at 10

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

    “We are not persuaded that this assertion supports the argument for a second petition. As argued by Patent Owner, Petitioner’s alleged need is undermined by the distribution of its arguments across the 110 IPR and this proceeding. As discussed above, for the “at least one thigh support adjusters” in the 110 IPR, Petitioner relies on one prior art structure from the first category and two prior art structures from the second category; and for the “at least one thigh support adjusters” in this proceeding, Petitioner relies on two prior art structures from the first category and one prior art structure from the second category. Id. In other words, as stated by Patent Owner, “Petitioner was able to address both its constructions in both of its Petitions.” Resp. 3–411; see also Medacta USA, Inc. v. RSB Spine, LLC, IPR2020-00275, Paper 22 at 10–11 (PTAB May 22, 2020) (denying institution of a second-ranked parallel petition challenging the same claims of the same patent and stating, “Because Petitioner was able to present an alternative challenge contingent upon [the] alternative claim construction” in the first-ranked petition, “we fail to see how uncertainty regarding claim construction justifies two petitions.”). In contrast, in the SolarEdge decision cited by Petitioner, the first-ranked petition presented one approach as to the prior art and the second-ranked petition was permitted because it presented a different approach, such that the two petitions “do not overlap in any meaningful way.” SolarEdge v. SMA Solar Techs., IPR2019-01224, Paper 10 at 10 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2020), cited at Expl. 4. Turning to the discovery issue, we determine that the alleged failure of Patent Owner to answer adequately an interrogatory in the Texas Litigation seeking information on “all corresponding disclosures and written 11 Petitioner highlights the two categories of prior art structures identified across the six grounds in these two proceedings rather than the two different constructions for “at least one thigh support adjuster” proposed. Looking at the distributions of the constructions presented, however, the same reasoning above applies as Petitioner relied on each construction at least twice to address the “one thigh support adjuster” in each proceeding. See 110 Petition 27 (relying on both constructions for Ground 1), 53–57 (relying on only a § 112(f) construction for Ground 2), 86–90 (relying on both constructions for Ground 3); Pet. 29–34 (relying on only a § 112(f) construction for Ground 4), 61–63 (relying on both constructions for Ground 5), 88–90 (relying on both constructions for Ground 6). description support for the ‘at least one thigh support adjuster’ limitation” (Ex. 1029 at 5) does not warrant a second petition here. The challenged patent was clearly available to Petitioner, and Petitioner was—even with Patent Owner’s non-substantive answer to the interrogatory (id. at 6)—able to propose a construction of “at least one thigh support adjuster” under § 112(f). See Pet. 7–12. For these reasons, the two different constructions presented do not warrant a second petition in this proceeding.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,786,055

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.