• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01336 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 24, and 25 are unpatentable; claims 10, 13, 14, 17, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable, principally due to missing limitations or insufficient motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “information” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as “data,” and that Patent Owner’s narrower construction of “first information” and “second information” lacks sufficient support in the intrinsic record. We agree with Petitioner that the ’802 patent Specification defines “information” as data when it uses the phrase “information (i.e., data).” See Ex. 1001, 5:60–62 (“Information (i.e., data) to be transmitted may be received in a baseband digital system 250, such as a wireless digital baseband processor.” (emphasis added)), 11:30–32 (“In this example, the signals 911 and 912 carry the same information (data).” (emphasis added)). As the Federal Circuit has explained, a “specification’s use of ‘i.e.’ signals an intent to define the word to which it refers.” Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “argument based on Fernandez alone, we find that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a motivation to remove the amplification from each of Fernandez’s signal generators 10A-10E and add a single power amplifier instead. See Pet. 76–77 Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Petitioner’s only rationale for this modification to Fernandez is that “[a] single amplifier has several advantages compared to multiple amplifiers, including lower complexity, a single (vs. multiple) potential point of failure, and lower cost,” and that one of ordinary skill “would have found a single amplifier to be a simple matter of design preference.” Pet. 76–77. Dr. Almeroth simply repeats these cursory allegations without providing any further explanation or evidentiary support. Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Moreover, Dr. Cooklev provides credible testimony that replacing Fernandez’s amplification in signal generators 10A–10E with a single amplifier would not necessarily have the advantages that Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 99, 104–105. For example, Dr. Cooklev testifies that a single amplifier would need to have a wider bandwidth than the multiple amplifiers used in Fernandez, which could cause potential stability issues. Id. ¶ 105. According to Dr. Cooklev, this wider bandwidth would require more circuit elements, and thus would not provide the reduction in space usage and power consumption that Petitioner asserts. Id. According to Dr. Cooklev, Montojo also points to several “substantial, and potentially impractical, drawbacks” of using a single amplifier for multiple signal generators, including power constraints imposed by spectral emission requirements and on-board battery capacity. Id. ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7– 8). In light of this testimony, which we find credible, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace the multiple amplifiers in Fernandez’s signal generators with a single amplifier.” slip op. at 65

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

    “argument based on Fernandez alone, we find that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a motivation to remove the amplification from each of Fernandez’s signal generators 10A-10E and add a single power amplifier instead. See Pet. 76–77 Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Petitioner’s only rationale for this modification to Fernandez is that “[a] single amplifier has several advantages compared to multiple amplifiers, including lower complexity, a single (vs. multiple) potential point of failure, and lower cost,” and that one of ordinary skill “would have found a single amplifier to be a simple matter of design preference.” Pet. 76–77. Dr. Almeroth simply repeats these cursory allegations without providing any further explanation or evidentiary support. Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Moreover, Dr. Cooklev provides credible testimony that replacing Fernandez’s amplification in signal generators 10A–10E with a single amplifier would not necessarily have the advantages that Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 99, 104–105. For example, Dr. Cooklev testifies that a single amplifier would need to have a wider bandwidth than the multiple amplifiers used in Fernandez, which could cause potential stability issues. Id. ¶ 105. According to Dr. Cooklev, this wider bandwidth would require more circuit elements, and thus would not provide the reduction in space usage and power consumption that Petitioner asserts. Id. According to Dr. Cooklev, Montojo also points to several “substantial, and potentially impractical, drawbacks” of using a single amplifier for multiple signal generators, including power constraints imposed by spectral emission requirements and on-board battery capacity. Id. ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7– 8). In light of this testimony, which we find credible, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace the multiple amplifiers in Fernandez’s signal generators with a single amplifier.” slip op. at 65

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We find credible and agree with Dr. Cooklev’s testimony that the predistortion signals from tables 17-1 and 17-2 “are cancelled out by Suzuki’s amplifier” 28. Ex. 2013 ¶ 50. Dr. Cooklev supports his opinion by referring to paragraph 1 of Suzuki, which states that Suzuki’s invention is directed to “a multi-band lookup table type predistorter” (such as the one implemented using lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 in Figure 6) that “compensates for a distortion of a power amplifier.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 54; Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. Dr. Cooklev’s opinion is also supported by paragraph 3 of Suzuki, which explains that a conventional digital predistorter uses a lookup table “for linearizing non-linear characteristics of an amplifier.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 3; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. Dr. Cooklev further supports his opinion by relying on Suzuki’s disclosure in paragraph 46 that power amplifier 28 is “subject to distortion compensation” by the predistorter, and that distortion components in the signal output by the amplifier are canceled by “distortion compensation data [that] are read out from the lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 and provided to the adders 13-1 and 13-2, respectively.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 46; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. And, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion is supported by Suzuki’s disclosure in paragraph 47 that the distortion compensation added by adders 13-1 and 13-2 add the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 “to perform distortion compensation (addition of predistortion)” to “signals to be transmitted.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 47; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. Petitioner agrees that the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 “are added to the respective frequency band from” input signal ST “in order to predistort the output signal, which is then transmitted,” and does not dispute that the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 is ultimately cancelled out by the distortion created by amplifier 28. Pet. Reply 8. In light of the above evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that Suzuki’s distortion components from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 in Figure 6 (which Petitioner relies on for the first and second digital signals in limitations 10a and 10b) are cancelled out by the distortion created by power amplifier 28 before the signal is ultimately transmitted. We agree with Petitioner that these first and second digital signals include data in the form of distortion compensation data. However, because these signals are cancelled by the distortion from amplifier 28 before transmission, the data from these signals is never transmitted. Thus, the first and second digital signals identified by Petitioner (the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2) do not comprise data “to be transmitted,” as limitations 10a and 10b require.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 7,924,802 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,924,802
• Ceva Santé Animale S.A. / Egg-Chick Automated Technologies S.A.S et al. v. Targan, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00595 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted §103 grounds; Petitioner did not show claims 16–18 unpatentable because the angled-conveyor combination lacked a supported rationale.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In determining 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) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us, including the ’124 patent, the Gershman, Pierre, Yavnai, Tao, and Goodwin references, and the background and qualifications of both sides expert witnesses that reflect the knowledge and experience of a POSITA, including knowledge of systems for assessing and transporting poultry in an industrial setting. Patent Owner’s proposed skill level overlaps with Petitioner’s proposed skill level, and any differences would not alter the outcome of this proceeding. Therefore, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed skill level with two modifications. A POSITA also could have a Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Science or similar discipline, and a POSITA would be familiar with techniques for assessing and transporting poultry in an industrial setting, such as visual and/or anatomical characteristics of a chick.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Therefore, we find that Applicant distinguished Tao from “an unrestrained chick” because in Tao’s automated system a chick is restrained—the chick is held in place—by a retainer unit on a moving platform, whereas in Applicant’s claimed system a chick is not held in place on a moving platform. We further conclude that Applicant’s reason for distinguishing the claimed invention over Tao informs the claim construction even if the “prosecution history statements do not rise to the level of unmistakable disavowal . . . .” Personalized Media, 952 F.3d at 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In view of the ’124 patent claims, specification, and prosecution history, we determine “an unrestrained chick” is a chick not held in place on the moving platform and free to open its wings.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “For the reasons given below, we find the Petition has established that Gershman discloses and teaches “a moving platform to support an unrestrained chick of a particular breed” by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 29

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

    “to determine a characteristic [of the chick] . . . [that] manifests in one of two or more possible states, e.g., sex (male vs. female), health (healthy vs. unhealthy), genetic mutation (present vs. not present).” Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1004, 3). The recitation of a generic “database of images” does not distinguish limitation [1.4] from the asserted combination of Gershman-Pierre, particularly in view of Pierre’s disclosure of “a computerized processing process is implemented in order to compare the captured images to reference images,” as asserted in the Petition. Ex. 1004, 3 (emphasis added); see Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1003, 2–5; Ex. 1004, 3, 5). Thus, we find that storage of Pierre’s reference images of male and female wing feathers in a database used for comparison in Gershman’s computerized digital chick image processing system would have been obvious to a POSITA and satisfies limitation [1.4].19 We agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious and well within the skill level of a POSITA—someone with a Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural, industrial, or electrical engineering and two years of experience in industrial poultry sexing and/or image processing (Resp. 20)—to store reference images as taught by Pierre in a “computerized processing” database. The rationale argued by Petitioner, to organize the collection of reference images for comparison to determine whether the characteristic of interest was present, finds direct support in Gershman and Pierre. Both references disclose comparing digital images of a chick’s wing feathers to reference data (Gershman) or reference images (Pierre) of male and female chick wing patterns. Pet. 23–24; Reply 12–13. Storing digital reference images in a database for comparison to captured digital images is, moreover, a basic and straightforward task in any computerized image processing” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 10,806,124 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,806,124
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / Instagram, Inc. et al. v. VL Collective IP LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00924 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Zhao; claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 are not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “Decision is a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 as to the patentability of claims 1–16 of the ’980 patent. We determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–15 are unpatentable, and Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “being present in another image or comparing that probability to a detection threshold.”). Dr. Saber was consistent with this testimony on cross-examination. Ex. 1051, 167–251. When I weigh the evidence, I find it to be one-sided, with all of the expert testimony weighing against Petitioner or avoiding the issue altogether. Thus, I would not find that Petitioner has met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Zhao teaches claim limitation 1e. Moreover, even if the Majority is correct about how Zhao’s RCR algorithm works, all that shows is that the detection of object presence in a previous image can be used to disambiguate segments (e.g., limbs) of an already detected object (e.g., a person), not that it can be used to detect the object in the image in the first place, as required by the claim language. For this additional reason, I would not find that Petitioner has met its burden.” slip op. at 84

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. Reasons for Obviousness Based on Zhao On a limitation-by-limitation basis, Petitioner’s contentions of” slip op. at 25

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

    “2. Reasons for Obviousness Based on Zhao On a limitation-by-limitation basis, Petitioner’s contentions of “obviousness” are primarily assertions of how a POSITA would have understood Zhao’s disclosures. For example, with regard to claim 1, Petitioner repeatedly asserts how “a POSITA would have understood Zhao” (Pet. 13, 18, 21, 27) and for each limitation contends that Zhao “disclosed or at least rendered obvious” (or a variation thereof) the limitation (id. at 13– 15, 17–18, 21, 23, 25–27). We will, accordingly, address these “obviousness” contentions when addressing the respective limitations.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,436,980 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,436,980
• Apple Inc. v. Scramoge Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00350 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 and 14–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 13 is not shown unpatentable. Proposed substitute claims 21–23 are unpatentable, so the revised motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Petitioner’s proposed combination of Hong and Park teaches the recited short-range communication antenna of limitation 1.3. We also are persuaded that Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for modifying Hong’s device to include Park’s NFC antenna coil is sufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 20

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

    “claims 1, 12, and 11, respectively. RMTA 1. A listing of proposed substitute claims 21–23 is provided by Patent Owner in the Appendix of its Revised Motion to Amend. Id. at 25–29. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Patent Owner has shown that proposed substitute claims 21–23 meet the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. We also determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 21–23 are unpatentable over prior art. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 62

  • ExcludeOther

    “We do not rely on either of Exhibits 2017 and 2018. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 118

  Patent outcomesUS 9,806,565 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,806,565
• Apple Inc. v. Personalized Media Communications LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2022 · IPR2016-01520 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

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

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

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

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

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

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,559,635 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,559,635
• Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00627 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 10–16, 21–23, 25, and 38–46 are unpatentable; claims 6–9, 17–20, 24, and 47 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Although the dictionary defines “periodically” as “from time to time” or “at regular intervals of time,” based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that its proposed construction is how one skilled in the art would have understood that term in the context of the ’345 patent Specification. Turning first to the intrinsic evidence, the Specification explains that “[t]he future and current minimum values are calculated continuously and initiated periodically, for example, every 5 seconds.” Ex. 1001, 8:37–39. Although the Specification later notes that “[i]t will be appreciated that, while specific values are used as in the several equations and calculations employed in the present invention, these values may be different than those shown” (id. at 8:64–67), this passage does not mean that the Specification contemplates arrangements where “periodically” is simply “from time to time.” Rather, we determine that statement from the Specification indicates that the specific amount of time (i.e., every 5 seconds) may vary. Turning now to the extrinsic evidence, the testimony of Dr. Douglas supports our conclusion, explaining that “at regular intervals of time” is the “only . . . definition . . . consistent with the understanding of a person skilled in the art in light of the specification of the ’345 Patent and its use in the particular field of audio signal processing” because [l]ike the “period” of an audio signal itself, which is the amount of time it takes for a signal to repeat itself, “periodically” as recited in claims 6 and 9 and throughout the remainder of the specification of the ’345 Patent refers to actions that occur at regular intervals (e.g., every 5 seconds rather than merely “from time to time”). Ex. 2002 ¶ 48. Moreover, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hochwald testifies that outside of the context of the ’345 patent Specification, “periodically” means “at regular time intervals” (Ex. 2005, 99:13–15), and when asked about that term’s meaning in the context of the ’345 patent Specification, Dr. Hochwald simply noted that “all I can do is read what it says,” which is that “[i]t’s doing something periodically, for example, every five seconds” (id. at 100:4–6). Accordingly, the testimony from Dr. Douglas, as well as that from Dr. Hochwald, supports Patent Owner’s construction. In summary, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “periodically,” requiring “at regular intervals of time,” because (1) this is consistent with how this term is used in the context of the ’345 Patent Specification; and (2) this is supported by the testimony of both experts.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Patent Owner responds that, because Helf uses average values (i.e., the average of eight consecutive values), it does not disclose using a minimum value. PO Resp. 17–23. Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’345 patent, itself, uses a “smoothing process [that] produces frequency bins with multiple smoothed magnitude values, ultimately finding the minimum of all of the values,” but contends that “Helf’s averaging process produces a single output representing one average of the original samples.” Id. at 20–21 (underlining omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:14–28; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the differences between Helf and the ’345 patent. While Helf may ultimately produce a single minimum value, as discussed above, that value is based on a minimum value of the averages calculated over the given time period. At oral hearing, Patent Owner acknowledged that Helf determines many averages values (i.e., the averages of the eight consecutive frames) and determines a minimum of those values. See, e.g., Tr. 22:2–6. The claim simply requires a “future minimum value,” and does not preclude that value from being a minimum value taken from a set of average values. Indeed, such an interpretation of the claim would be inconsistent with the ’345 patent’s use of smoothed values noted by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 8:14–28. The testimony of Dr. Douglas cited by Patent Owner does not convince us otherwise. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72 (effectively repeating Patent Owner’s contentions, which are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Helf’s minimum value (Mk) corresponds to the “future minimum value” recited in claims 4 and 39.” slip op. at 13

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

    “With respect to its “running minimum estimator,” Helf explains that the “running minimum estimator” is used “when either the speech signal is never absent for more than a second or the background noise itself is never constant in spectral shape.” Ex. 1010, 8:11–15. Helf acknowledges that its “running minimum estimator” is “much less accura[te]” than its “stationary estimator,” which is typically used for background noise estimates. Id. at 8:15–17. As a result, Helf only uses its “running minimum estimator” if “[i]t has been more than 10 seconds since the last update of the background noise spectral estimate due to the Stationary Estimator,” and “[t]he difference, D, between the past background noise estimate, which may have resulted from the Stationary Estimator or the Running Minimum Estimator, and the current Running Minimum Estimator is great.” Id. at 8:32–42. We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,363,345
• Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 24, 2015 · IPR2014-00482 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13–15, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29–31, 33, 35, and 37 are unpatentable; claims 12 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We previously determined that, under a broad but reasonable construction, one of skill in the art would have understood the term “virtual private network communication link,” in light of the Specification, to include “a transmission path between two devices that restricts access to data, addresses, or other information on the path, generally using obfuscation methods to hide information on the path, including, but not limited to, one or more of authentication, encryption, or address hopping.” Dec. on Inst. 6–7. 1 Patent Owner disputes this interpretation and argues that the term “virtual private network communication link” must be “a communication path between computers in a virtual private network” (PO Resp. 8), “requir[es] computers within a VPN to communicate directly” (PO Resp. 10), and requires a “network of computers,” which, according to Patent Owner must be “more than a ‘path between two devices.’” PO Resp. 14. We decline to modify our previous construction of this term in the manner suggested by Patent Owner because such a modification is immaterial in this proceeding for reasons set forth below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the case).” slip op. at 3

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

    “understood that a “secure computer network address” must be “associated with a computer capable of virtual private network communications” because a claim recites “sending an access request message to the secure computer network address using a virtual private network communication link.” PO Resp. 16. We agree with Patent Owner that claim 1, for example, recites “sending an access request message to the secure computer network address using a virtual private network communication link.” However, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why an explicitly recited claim limitation must be incorporated into the construction of an associated claim term. Indeed, if one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that all secure computer network addresses must be associated with a computer capable of VPN communications and that any computer network address that is associated with computers that are incapable of VPN communications would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art not to be a “secure computer network address” (even if authorization for access is required), then any such recited claim limitation would be superfluous. Patent Owner also argues that “VirnetX’s proposed construction has been agreed to by its litigation adversaries and has been adopted by a district court.” PO Resp. 17. Even if Patent Owner’s proposed construction “has been agreed to by” parties in litigation and the district court, Patent Owner does not assert or demonstrate persuasively that one of ordinary skill in the art would have broadly but reasonably construed the term “secure computer network address” in light of the Specification to require association with a computer capable of virtual private network communications. In any event, Patent Owner does not appear to contend that the cited references fail to disclose a secure computer network address that is associated with a computer capable of VPN communications and, therefore, does not demonstrate sufficiently that the construction of “secure computer network address” will bear on the outcome of the issues in this inter partes review. We decline to modify our construction of this term.” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “computer network address” of “the server-side proxy” (and not the “host”). PO Resp. 32 (emphasis omitted). In other words, Patent Owner argues that, in contrast to claim 1, which requires sending a query message requesting an address and receiving a response message containing the address requested in the query message, Kiuchi discloses sending a query message requesting an address of “the host” but receiving a response message containing an address of “the server-side proxy,” rather than “the host.” Based on this presumption that “the host” of Kiuchi differs from the “server-side proxy” of Kiuchi, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose the claimed invention and also that “the Board has exceeded its statutory authority by instituting in part on rationales that were not before it.” PO Resp. 30. However, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently a difference between “the host” and the “server-side proxy” of Kiuchi. Kiuchi discloses that a client-side proxy “asks the C-HTTP name server whether it can communicate with the host” and that, in response, the C-HTTP name server examines “the requested server-side proxy” and responds by sending the IP address of the server-side proxy. Ex. 1004, 65 (emphasis added). In other words, Kiuchi discloses that “the host” that is requested is the requested “server-side proxy.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiuchi with the other references.” PO Resp. 3. Petitioner provides reasons with supporting factual underpinnings to support the conclusion that the combination of Kiuchi and Bhatti (and/or Tavs) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 34–35, 38–39. For example, Petitioner states that one of ordinary skill in the art would implement Kiuchi’s user agent such that the user agent sends an access request for content stored on the origin server, in the same manner that Bhatti describes sending an access request from a user terminal for content stored [on] a content server. Pet. 38. Petitioner also states that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the ’180 patent to modify the client-side proxy and server-side proxy described by Kiuchi to support the service-level categorization and differentiation described by Tavs in order to give priority to business-relevant traffic during peak network congestion.” Pet. 34. Patent Owner does not dispute the reasons provided by Petitioner as to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined teachings of Kiuchi and Bhatti (and/or Tavs) but argues that this obviousness ground “is critically flawed because the Petition relies solely on missing expert testimony for its rationale for combining” the references. PO Resp. 54, 56. However, Patent Owner does not explain why Petitioner is required to provide expert testimony in support of a proposed ground of unpatentability. Nor does Patent Owner explain the supposed flaws in the rationale provided by Petitioner.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,188,180 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,188,180
• Customplay, LLC v. Clearplay, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2015 · IPR2014-00383 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–22 and 24–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Abecassis and Malkin; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The Specification states that “navigation objects” “define portions of the multimedia content that should be filtered.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 52–54. The Specification also discloses that each navigation object contains a start position, a stop position, and a filtering action to be performed on the portion of the multimedia content that is defined by the start position and stop position. Id. at col. 4, ll. 54–56. Independent claims 1 and 15 mirror this language, requiring that each navigation object comprise a start indicator associated with a first position, an end indicator associated with a second position, and at least one filtering action. The challenged claims also require the at least one filtering action of the navigation object to include a “skip filtering action.” Accordingly, the broadest reasonable construction of the phrase “navigation object” in light of the Specification of the ’318 patent is information that defines both (1) a portion of multimedia content to filter and (2) at least one filtering action to be taken on a defined portion of multimedia content, the filtering action including, but not limited to, a skip filtering action.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention”). Dr. Kiaei opines that a person having ordinary skill in the art on October 23, 2000 would typically have (i) a M.S. degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or a related field) with at least a 2-3 years of experience working with signal, video, or data processing, or (ii) a B.S. in electrical engineering or computer science (or a related field) with significant practical experience (4 or more years) working with signal, video, or data processing. Ex. 2001¶ 15. The prior art also reflects a skill level in the relevant technology. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. Petitioner does not propose a specific level of ordinary skill. Based on our review of the ’318 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’318 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Kiaei, we agree with Dr. Kiaei and adopt the level of ordinary skill proposed by Dr. Kiaei.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Here, it is clear, based on the reference disclosures, that Abecassis discloses filtering actions taken with respect to the segments defined by start and end indicators (but not included with the indicators in a single “navigation object”). Whether those filtering actions are provided by the end-user, as suggested by Abecassis, or are pre-programmed as part of the video map, as suggested by Malkin, would have been an obvious choice for a person of ordinary skill and creativity. The rationale for the modification comes from the references. First, Abecassis identifies the desirability of incorporating “capabilities and environments that automatically customize the playing of videos to satisfy the particular video requirement” of various viewers, and that deliver “a more enjoyable video experience without requiring the level of active participation inherent in interactive systems.” Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 45–52. Abecassis also states the desirability for “automated selective retrieval of non-sequentially stored, parallel, transitional, and overlapping video segments” (id. at col. 2, ll. 1–3); “automated capabilities for efficiently retrieving and playing only a specified class, category, or subject matter included in segments within the selected video” (id. at col. 2, ll. 50–53); and “intermittent content skipping methods” (id. at col. 3, l. 2).” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusDecided for petitioner

    “7. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Patent Owner argues, without citation to any supporting evidence, that “secondary considerations [of commercial success] support the validity of the claims.” PO Resp. 61. Objective criteria, such as commercial success, constitute independent evidence of non-obviousness. Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The objective indicia, however, must establish a nexus with the claimed subject matter. Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311–12 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, Patent Owner provides argument, but no evidence, of the alleged commercial success.8 See, e.g., PO Resp. 61 (“[s]ince 2001, [Patent Owner] has had gross sales of $21 million”). Patent Owner also fails to provide any evidence of the relevant market share, that the sales were due to the claimed navigation objects as argued, or that the alleged commercial success is due to the patented invention rather than other factors.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,543,318 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,543,318
• Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 11, 2015 · IPR2013-00507 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14–17, and 19–28 are unpatentable as obvious over Frey and Michelson; claim 18 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an implant with a length of greater than 40 mm (e.g., 42 mm) and at least 2.5 times the width, as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 9

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

    “the capability for posterolateral TLIF procedure.” PO Resp. 30. However, Frey discloses “spinal surgery from a unilateral posterior approach, a lateral approach, an oblique approach, and through laparoscopic or endoscopic instruments from any of a variety of angles or approaches to the spine.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. Given that Frey discloses spinal surgery performed “from any of a variety of angles or approaches,” and not just from the posterolateral approach, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the “intended purpose” of Frey is to perform spinal surgery from a posterolateral approach, specifically. Rather, Frey discloses that “spinal discs may be displaced or damaged” and “may result in nerve damage, pain, numbness, muscle weakness, and even paralysis.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 3. According to Frey, these issues are addressed by “surgical correction of a collapsed disc space” by “discectomy . . . often followed by restoration of normal disc space height and bony fusion of the adjacent vertebrae to maintain the disc space height.” Id. Hence, the “intended purpose” of the implant of Frey, as explicitly disclosed by Frey, is to correct surgically a collapsed disc space, to restore normal disc space height, and to provide bony fusion of the adjacent vertebrae. We disagree with Patent Owner that incorporating Michelson, which discloses an implant that “engage[s] more of the adjacent vertebrae,” (Ex. 1105, 3:49–50) would have rendered the resulting implant inoperable for Frey’s intended purpose of surgically correcting a collapsed disc space or providing bony fusion of the adjacent vertebrae. Even if the “intended purpose” of Frey is to practice a “TLIF procedure,” as Patent Owner contends, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that an implant measuring greater than 40 mm in length would be inoperable in a “TLIF procedure.” As Petitioner explains, U.S. Patent No. 7,815,682 (the ’682 patent) demonstrates that when performing “Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures,” one of ordinary skill in the art may employ a spinal implant with “a length ranging between 20 and 45 mm.” Pet. Resp. 6 (citing, Ex. 1028, 1:37–38; 4:45). The ’682 patent does not disclose that the use of a spinal implant measuring up to 45 mm in length would render the “TLIF procedure” inoperable.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We recognize that evidence of secondary considerations must always be considered en route to the determination of obviousness, but its existence alone does not control the conclusion of obviousness. Richardson-Vicks v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The weight given to evidence of secondary considerations is dependent upon whether there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Even assuming that NuVasive’s CoRoent XL implant experienced “commercial success,” as Patent Owner asserts, Patent Owner has not demonstrated sufficiently that there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. For example, Patent Owner argues that NuVasive “pioneered the market for lateral, trans-psoas interbody fusion surgeries,” (PO Resp. 44) but fails to demonstrate sufficiently that any of the disputed claims recite “lateral, trans-psoas interbody fusion surgeries.” We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeOther

    “C. Motion to Exclude In its Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner seeks to exclude the Declaration of Loic Josse (Ex. 1116, “Josse Declaration”). We did not rely on the Josse Declaration in this decision. Therefore, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,187,334 mixed
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,187,334

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.