- X Corp. v. Sterling Computers CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00299 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated Dumais-based and Kircher/Krug grounds; Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s motions to exclude are dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Our Institution Decision adopted Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8–9. In its response, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. See PO Resp. 14–15 (“Patent Owner and its expert adopt the Board’s definition for purposes of this Response”). Having considered the record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’217 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8–9.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached
“1. “computer program modules” The parties dispute whether four “computer program modules comprising” (1) “a monitoring module,” (2) “a first relevance measurement module,” (3) “a second relevance measurement module,” and (4) “a relevance analysis module” (collectively, “module limitations”) invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and should be treated as means-plus-function limitations. See Pet. 8–18; PO Resp. 15–18; Pet. Reply 3–5; PO Sur-reply 4–7. However, the parties do not argue that the construction of these terms affects the analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. See PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Moreover, our analysis does not rely on any particular construction of these terms and, so, we need not resolve this dispute.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“2. “one or more measures derived from the group consistent of” Petitioner asserts limitations 1[g] and 1[g][i]–1[g][iv] recite an open Markush group listing alternatively useable members. Pet. 20–21 (citing Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Abbot Lab’ys v. Baxter Pharm. Prod., Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that the listing of specified alternatives within a claim is referred to as a Markush group or Markush grouping)); See Ex. 1001, 47:47–58. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction. See PO Resp; PO Sur-reply. As these terms are not in controversy, we need not opine on this construction.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s respective constructions overlap in their requirement that “cognate” users share similar past user actions and assessments or are defined by similar direct input by the user. See Pet. 18; PO Resp. 20–21; PO Sur-reply 10. Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s construction “exclude[s] ‘groups’ from the claims” and further limits the scope of to users who share actions (Pet. Reply 8–9), but Patent Owner states that its proposed construction does not so limit the claims (PO Sur-reply 10). As such, there is no disagreement that “cognate” users share similar past user actions and assessments or are defined by similar direct input by the user. As there is no controversy, we need not, and do not, construe the meaning of “cognate.” However, Patent Owner’s requirement that “at least one other of the plurality of users” is specifically cognate to “the user” who was sent the content is plainly recited in the claim language itself. The claim recites a “relevance score of a piece of electronic content sent from a sender to a user” in the preamble and similarly again in limitation 1[g]. See Ex. 1001, 47:25–28 (emphasis added), 45:62–64. The limitation in question directly references the claimed “user” when reciting the cognate relationship: “identify at least one other of the plurality of users . . . that is cognate to the user.” Ex. 1001, 47:43–45 (emphasis added). As such, the claim language plainly supports Patent Owner’s requirement and Petitioner does not contest that requirement. See Pet. Reply 8. least one other of the plurality of users . . . that is cognate to the user” as requiring that the identified other user is cognate specifically to the user whose relevance score is being determined.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 7,716,217 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,716,217 - Apple Inc. v. DH International Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 16, 2026 · IPR2025-00172 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Suga and Gorsuch; the Board denied Patent Owner’s motion to exclude.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner also asserts prejudice for “not knowing” which Suga Exhibit “the Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert is relying on (see Exhibit 1021 and 1022),” without further explanation. Mot. Reply 6. Exhibit 1022 is a dictionary definition of “node.” How this relates to Patent Owner’s argument of prejudice is not explained. Id. at 5–6. The Board perceives no difficulty following Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, which cite Suga Exhibit 1005, including the testimony of Dr. Buehrer regarding the English language translation of Suga, which is identical in Exhibits 1005 and 1017. Patent Owner, moreover, opted not to depose Dr. Buehrer, did not file a deposition transcript of Dr. Buehrer in this proceeding, and does not allege any difference or substantive deficiency in the English language translation in Suga Exhibits 1005 and 1017, which are identical. We fail to see any prejudice to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 84
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“d. Conclusion for Claim 1 For the reasons given above, we determine the Petition establishes by” slip op. at 60
Patent outcomesUS 9,022,294 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,022,294 - Google LLC v. DH International Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2024-01322 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Mooney; the Board also found Mooney combined with Lee renders the disputed limitations obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’294 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in design, development, and/or testing of network-enabled consumer devices, and familiarity with payment cards, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 2 (citing Lipoff Decl. Ex. 1003 ¶ 57). “Patent Owner agrees with the Petitioner on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Resp. 4. Patent Owner adds that a POSITA would have had “at least three years of relevant industry or research experience in wireless communication between devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 26–29). Mr. Zaheer testifies that a POSITA “would” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The claim language and specification define and describe an “activation cue” in functional terms: a data communication from an external source is received by the cell phone and recognized as an activation cue if it causes the switching element to be assigned its first (activated) state. Ex. 1001, 9:28–31, 9:42–46, 10:14–16, 13:55–60, 14:53–59, 15:4–6, 19:20–26. Patent Owner agrees that “upon an activation cue being received by portable electronic device 10, switching element 44b switches to its activated state.” Resp. 19 (quoting Ex. 1001, 10:14–16). The activation cue may be a predetermined bit sequence, a predetermined contactless data transmission, continuously emitted, pulsed, or punctual, but these are unclaimed non-limiting embodiments of the preferred form of data transmission. Id. at 9:25–26 (“for example a predetermined bit sequence”), 11:20–22 (“One example . . . emit an activation cue in the form of a predetermined contactless data transmission”), 14:65–15:3 (continuously emitted, pulsed or punctual cue). We will not read such preferred embodiments from the specification into claim language that is not so limited. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (care should be taken “not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim”); see also In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification”); see also IQRIS Techns. LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., 2025 WL 727717, *4 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“It is the claims, not the preferred embodiments, that” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“operatively linked to said electronic circuit” under 35 U.S.C. Section 112, sixth paragraph or not, the result is the same. We note there is no presumption of applying means-plus-function analysis to the switching element, because the limitation does not use the words “means for” that would mandate such claim construction treatment, and “switching” may invoke structure as well as function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349–1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). Regardless, we look to the meaning of the claim phrase at issue in view of the specification. We determine that the ’294 patent provides a clear, concise meaning for the switching element upon which both parties rely for construction. Patent Owner’s express agreement with Petitioner, that the claimed switching element is described in the ’294 patent as “any type of device allowing data to be conveyed according to alternate data conveyance operations in response to an activation cue being received by transceiver 18 or not,’” is particularly telling because it is not consistent with Patent Owner’s argument that the switching element means “switching of the data.” Resp. 7, 31 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:28–318). The claim language does not recite, and the specification does not describe, the switching element as a device that switches the data. Therefore, we determine the claimed “data conveyance switching element” means any type of switching device that allows data to be 8 We presume Patent Owner’s citation to “Exh. 2001, 9:28-31” on page 7 was intended to be a citation to the ’294 patent (Ex. 1001), as cited on page 31. whether or not an “activation cue” is received by the cell phone “cue receiver.”” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“[external] data exchange device” as a device with a data transceiver coupled to a circuit that carries out the function of exchanging data. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:14–17, 4:7–14, 9:3–6; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–68). As above, whether we construe the “[external] data exchange device” under 35 U.S.C. Section 112, sixth paragraph or not, the result is the same. Patent Owner, quoting the description of a data exchange device in the ’294 patent, contends that a “[external] data exchange device” “can be any sort of data exchange device comprising an electronic circuit (not shown) therein and a data transceiver 9a.” Resp. 8 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:4–6). Patent Owner also responds to the Petition by clarifying that “[a]n external data exchange device is not a transceiver but a device with a transceiver.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 48). Petitioner argues in reply that Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s mappings of Mooney’s “cordless telephone base unit” or “cellular network infrastructure” to the claimed data exchange devices, such that no construction is necessary to resolve the dispute. Reply 5 (citing Resp. 16–37; Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Limitations [1.c] and [1.d] recite “a first [second] data transceiver operatively linked to said electronic circuit [in the cell phone],” both of which are defined functionally as “for exchanging data between said electronic circuit [in the cell phone] and a first [second] external data exchange device over a first [second] communication link.” Nothing in the the other independent claims, further limits the form or function of the “[external] data exchange device,” although a device external to the cell phone may invoke additional structure. We determine the plain meaning of “[external] data exchange device” as claimed and described in the ’294 patent governs: any [external] device that comprises an electronic circuit and data transceiver for exchanging data with the electronic circuit in the cell phone over a communication link. slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,022,294 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,022,294 - Fubotv Media Inc. / Yanka Industries, Inc. et al. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00348 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–16 and 18–21 as obvious over Leaning, and claims 2 and 9 as obvious over Leaning and Gamble.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“This argument is misplaced. Petitioner does not propose modifying any of Leaning’s teachings. Rather, Petitioner relies on Leaning’s alternative embodiment (i.e., “employ[ing] a criterion which anticipates underflow and avoids it”). See Ex. 1004, 15:3–6; Pet. 38 (citing and quoting same). Patent Owner acknowledges this fact. See PO Sur-reply 12 (“Leaning proposes an alternative embodiment.”) (citing Ex. 1004, 14:25–15:8)). Accordingly, Petitioner need not show a reasonable expectation of success for implementing an alternative embodiment expressly disclosed in Leaning.10” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we accord Patent Owner’s evidence little to no weight. v. Unexpected Results Patent Owner argues that the MOVE Media Player “achieved what” slip op. at 65
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
Patent outcomesUS 8,868,772 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,868,772 - Fubotv Media Inc. / Yanka Industries, Inc. et al. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00347 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Leaning or Leaning and Gamble, because Petitioner proved the asserted grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“argue, that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing any of its proposed modifications.” PO Sur-reply 9. This argument is misplaced. Petitioner does not propose modifying any of Leaning’s teachings. Rather, Petitioner relies on Leaning’s alternative embodiment (i.e., “employ[ing] a criterion which anticipates underflow and avoids it”). See Ex. 1004, 15:3–6; Pet. 35–36 (citing same). Patent Owner acknowledges this fact. See PO Sur-reply 11 (“Leaning proposes an alternative embodiment.”) (citing Ex. 1004, 15:3–6). Accordingly,” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we accord Patent Owner’s evidence little to no weight. v. Unexpected Results Patent Owner argues that the MOVE Media Player “achieved what” slip op. at 58
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“E. Summary on Motion to Strike For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Motion is partly” slip op. at 107
Patent outcomesUS 9,407,564 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,407,564 - Google LLC v. Cellular South, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00877 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–11 because the Zhao-Kouzani combination did not sufficiently show a fractal representation based on landmarks.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’853 patent is unpatentable, and we do not institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“generally known in the art, and that this is acknowledged by the ’853 patent. Pet. 40–41 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:40–44). Petitioner asserts that Kouzani touts the benefits of fractal models and that it would have been obvious to use Kouzani’s fractal model as the object model in Zhou. Pet 44 (asserting that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have therefore been motivated to implement Kouzani’s techniques in Zhao’s system”); see also id. 42–45. (entire argument). Patent Owner argues that Kouzani’s fractals would not result in the claimed limitation. Prelim. Resp. 21–23. In particular, Patent Owner points out that Kouzani’s fractals use a block-based fractal system, which do not include “a representation of the object based on landmarks associated with the object” as required by claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Even if Kouzani teaches fractals, claim 1 is not broadly claiming any fractal, but rather one that is “based on landmarks” (e.g., eyes, nose, etc.). See Ex. 1001, 13:53–57. The block-based system of Kouzani is based on abstract, repeated patterns of pixels, without regard to what the pixels represent. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 8 (describing a “search . . . through the domain pool to find a domain block whose contractive transformation best approximates the range block” and then storing all of the transformations that, together, “represent the compressed image of a person’s face”), Fig. 4 (showing example blocks). This is in contrast to looking for particular landmarks in the image. Thus, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Kouzani’s fractal is based on landmarks. In Petitioner’s ground, Petitioner asserts that Zhao already teaches the claimed landmarks (Pet. 39, citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58, 65), but Petitioner’s ground replaces or modifies the object model of Zhao with the fractals of Kouzani, which are not based on landmarks. Petitioner does not explain how Zhao’s modified model, now using a block-based fractal system, would still have the landmarks of Zhao’s original model. Even if it were obvious to include fractals, we are persuaded that the fractals included by Kouzani are not based on landmarks. Alternatively, if Petitioner is asserting merely to use fractals in Zhao’s models, then Petitioner has not sufficiently accounted for the particular fractals claimed and explained persuasively how merely using fractals in Zhao would lead to the claimed subject matter, i.e., fractals based on landmarks. In either event, Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the proposed combination satisfies the “fractal includes a representation of the object based on landmarks” limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Even if Kouzani teaches fractals, claim 1 is not broadly claiming any fractal, but rather one that is “based on landmarks” (e.g., eyes, nose, etc.). See Ex. 1001, 13:53–57. The block-based system of Kouzani is based on abstract, repeated patterns of pixels, without regard to what the pixels represent. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 8 (describing a “search . . . through the domain pool to find a domain block whose contractive transformation best approximates the range block” and then storing all of the transformations that, together, “represent the compressed image of a person’s face”), Fig. 4 (showing example blocks). This is in contrast to looking for particular landmarks in the image. Thus, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Kouzani’s fractal is based on landmarks. In Petitioner’s ground, Petitioner asserts that Zhao already teaches the claimed landmarks (Pet. 39, citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58, 65), but Petitioner’s ground replaces or modifies the object model of Zhao with the fractals of Kouzani, which are not based on landmarks. Petitioner does not explain how Zhao’s modified model, now using a block-based fractal system, would still have the landmarks of Zhao’s original model. Even if it were obvious to include fractals, we are persuaded that the fractals included by Kouzani are not based on landmarks. Alternatively, if Petitioner is asserting merely to use fractals in Zhao’s models, then Petitioner has not sufficiently accounted for the particular fractals claimed and explained persuasively how merely using fractals in Zhao would lead to the claimed subject matter, i.e., fractals based on landmarks. In either event, Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the proposed combination satisfies the “fractal includes a representation of the object based on landmarks” limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That is, “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1312–13 (quoting in Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). We do not need to construe any claim terms to reach a decision in this proceeding. Realtime, 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 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,126,853 - PTAB · Nov 7, 2025 · IPR2025-00913 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 27–28, and 30 are obvious over Menon, Trefethen, RS6000, and POEref.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017 (en banc (quoting Magnum Oil)). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). A party who petitions the Board for a determination of obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). We assess Petitioner’s evidence and argument according to the above- referenced obviousness standard. We determine that the Petition satisfies the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We begin our analysis with a discussion of the Menon, Trefethen, RS6000, and POEref references. slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“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 Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the Petition’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the description in the ’034 patent, the prior art of record, and the testimony of both experts.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner relies on the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms consistent with the Phillips standard. Pet. 12–13 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). The Petition addresses the construction of “peer-to-peer architecture” recited in independent claims 1 and 30 of the ’034 patent, a limitation we need not construe to decide the institution question. Id. at 13; Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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)). Patent Owner contends that “no claim construction is required” to address the Petition’s asserted deficiencies. Prelim. Resp. 6. Patent Owner also contends, however, that the Petition relies on a “novel claim construction” of limitations [1.4.1] and [1.5.1]—“second [third] hardware processor with a plurality of processing cores”—to support Petitioner’s obviousness argument. Id. at 11–12.8 Patent Owner challenges the Petition’s reliance on “single core processors on different chips,” such as the Power3 single-core processors of the Symmetric Multi- Processor (“SMP”) configuration disclosed in the RS6000 reference, as a disclosure of limitations [1.4.1] and [1.5.1]. Id. Patent Owner contends that such single-core processors on different chips do not satisfy limitations [1.4.1] and [1.5.1] because the ’034 patent “claims only multicore processors.” Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:15–27). Petitioner responds in part as follows: To the extent PO is implicitly arguing that RS6000’s “four, eight, twelve, or sixteen 375 MHz 630FP 64-bit processors” do not teach the recited “cores,” Patent Owner’s argument excludes embodiments described in the ’034 patent’s specification. The ’034 patent describes “[p]rocessor cores [as] generally independent microprocessors.” Ex.1001, 5:14–15. Patent Owner’s attempt to exclude RS6000 from the scope of the claims 8 Pursuant to the Board’s Order on Related Matter Updates (Paper 14), the parties filed the September 26, 2025 Claim Construction Order entered in the co-pending District Court litigation in this proceeding. Ex. 1085. The District Court Claim Construction Order did not construe the claim phrase “hardware processor with a plurality of processing cores.” Id. patent where the processor has independent microprocessors. Patent Owner’s attempt to distinguish RS6000’s Symmetric MultiProcessor as a “configuration” (Paper 8, 24) also fails because a “Symmetric MultiProcessor configuration” is no different than the ’034 patent’s description of a configuration of independent microprocessors. Id. Paper 9, 30.9 It is apparent there is a dispute over the plain meaning of Limitations [1.4.1] and [1.5.1], “a second [third] hardware processor with a plurality of processing cores,” recited in the independent claims.10 The parties are ordered to propose and support a particularized plain meaning or other construction of Limitations [1.4.1], [1.5.1], and [30.1.2] in their briefs. The parties are ordered to analyze the relevant claim language and cite to the specification and prosecution history in support of their claim construction, where applicable, with particular attention to the description of a hardware processor with a plurality of processing cores in the ’034 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:11–37, 7:14–36, 9:50–10:3.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artInstituted
“Motivation to Combine and Analogous Art The Petition offers several motivations to combine Menon, Trefethen, RS6000, and POEref in the manner claimed in the ’034 patent with a reasonable expectation of success, which we find sufficient on the present record. The Petition first asserts that Menon and Trefethen are analogous prior art because they pertain to the same “field of cluster computing” as the ’034 patent and “are reasonably pertinent to the problem of the ’034 patent, namely, executing a single program on multiple nodes.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex.1001, 1:14–15; Ex.1003, ¶¶ 65–69; Ex. 1005, 2; Ex. 1006, Abstract). The Petition points out that Menon expressly cites and builds on the MultiMATLAB system taught by Trefethen. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 71; Ex. 1005, 1–2). The Petition also contends that: Accordingly, Menon and Trefethen together represent a combination of prior art elements according to known methods (executing MATLAB code on a multiprocessor system) to yield the predictable result discussed in both papers: the MultiMATLAB system executing MATLAB in parallel to perform mathematical calculations. Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; Ex.1005, Abstract; Ex. 1006, 2–7). The Petition further contends that a POSITA would have found it predictable to combine Trefethen with Menon with a reasonable expectation of success” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,570,034 - Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00680 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable under § 103 over Gregorio, Ramsay, Tierling, Rossi, and Aldrich; claim 2 is also unpatentable over Gregorio, Ramsay, Wakuda, Rossi, and Aldrich.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of systems incorporating linear actuators; additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree. Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” See PO Resp. 4. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’337 patent specification.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. In particular, the parties agree that the “driving component” and “control component” requirements of independent claim 2 are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 2–6; PO Resp. 7. Construing a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 involves two steps: 1) identifying the claimed function and 2) identifying in the specification the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner constructionTerm construed board ownMixed
“supply of power from the power supply to . . . cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency . . . specified by one or more stored values” to portions of steps 706 and 708 of the flow diagram algorithm of Figure 7A, as described above. Thus, the control component requires a microprocessor and memory with algorithmic structure including a timing algorithm or similar coding for creating a control output signal that flips to control the direction of current flow through a coil (e.g., coil 514, Fig. 5, coil 626, Fig. 6), where the coil is structure that corresponds to the recited “driving component,” as noted above.10 We adopt the District Court’s conclusion in the Apple litigation that the “control component” structure itself does not require an H-bridge switch, but only requires that the processor generates the “d” inputs configured to operate a switch or other circuit; and further that the structure does not require does not require computing initial default values as specified in step 702 of Figure 7A (i.e., values not specified by a user). Ex. 3001, 30–33, 35. This is in accord with settled law that limits the structure to that necessary to 10 “Rather than using a formal timer mechanism, certain implementations may simply employ counted loops or other simple programming techniques for periodically carrying out tasks.” Ex. 1001, 7:7–10. perform the claimed function. 11 By the same token, we modify the District Court’s construction to the extent it would require, based on such steps as 706, 710, and 716, a specific order of the steps of generating the “p” and “d” values. The claims only require the control component to control the power supply to cause oscillation at a specified frequency and amplitude, but do not require the frequency value to be generated before the amplitude value, or vice versa.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“The record, including testimony by Dr. Hannaford (Ex. 1003; Ex. 1049), supports Petitioner’s rationale, and shows that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Gregorio, Ramsay, and Wakuda in the manner proposed. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s showing for combining these references with any particularity. See generally PO Resp. We discuss below Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s showing as to limitation 2.f based on the combination of Gregorio and Ramsay is conclusory.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 8,860,337 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,860,337 - PTAB · Oct 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00680 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 2 and 3 on all grounds in the Petition and granted Nintendo’s motion to join IPR2024-00807, subject to participation limits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“II. ANALYSIS A. Institution of Inter Partes Review We instituted an inter partes review in the Apple IPR on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds of unpatentability. Apple IPR, Paper 10 (institution decision); see also Apple IPR, Paper 2 (the “Apple Petition”). Petitioner here challenges the same claims and asserts the same grounds of unpatentability as those on which we instituted the Apple IPR. Compare Pet. 2, with Apple Petition 1; see also Mot. 1 (asserting the instant “Petition is substantively identical to Apple Inc.’s petition (‘Apple Petition’) in the Apple IPR, including that it relies on the same expert declaration,” and asserting “the same grounds presented in the Apple IPR”). As indicated, Petitioner also relies on the same declarant as did the petition in the Apple IPR. Mot. 1; compare Ex. 1003 (Hannaford Declaration), with Apple IPR, Ex. 1003 (same). Because the grounds of unpatentability in the instant Petition are identical to those in the Apple IPR and for the same reasons stated in our Decision to Institute in the Apple IPR, we institute inter partes review in this proceeding on the grounds presented in the Petition. See Apple IPR, Paper 10 (analyzing challenges in the Apple Petition).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“We determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that joinder is appropriate because, as set forth above, the Petition (1) is substantially identical to the Apple Petition, (2) contains the same grounds based on the same evidence, and (3) relies on the same declaration, the Hannaford Declaration (Ex. 1003). Mot. 1, 4. Petitioner represents that “joinder will not negatively impact the Apple IPR trial schedule” and “expressly consents to the existing trial schedule.” Id. at 10; see also id. at 7 (“Proceeding with a consolidated inter partes review would avoid potential inconsistency, promote efficient review of the same claims for the same patent under the same grounds, and would result in a final written decision without delay.”). Petitioner also represents that as “long as Apple remains in the joined IPR, Nintendo remains in a limited ‘silent understudy’ role that does not actively participate in the IPR.” Id. at 8. The record supports Petitioner. In addition, the final written decision in the Apple IPR is due to issue on or before October 15, 2025, with the Oral Hearing complete and no further briefing due. See IPR 2024-00807, Paper 15 (Oral Hearing Transcript); Paper 18, 2–3. Therefore, as Petitioner argues, joinder by Petitioner will have little or no impact on the trial schedule in the Apple IPR. On the other hand, if the Board denies joinder, Petitioner submits that it “intends to file a separate petition for IPR (‘Second Petition’) that includes grounds in addition to some (or all) of the grounds in the Apple IPR.” Mot. 14.” slip op. at 10
NonePatents in suitUS 8,860,337 - PTAB · Aug 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00479 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were obvious over Erskine, Scherzer, or Scherzer and Gillett.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“III. CONCLUSION Based on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’634 patent challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’634 patent (July 2018), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a similar major with at least two years of experience in the field; or a master’s degree with specialization in the field,” where “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–13). Petitioner further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had knowledge of “[d]esigning and using systems that include endpoint devices (e.g., client devices) and servers for establishing network connections and data transfer,” “[r]ecognizing and applying the client-server architecture,” and “[u]sing and applying concepts from known telecommunication and networking frameworks, protocols and standards, including TCP/IP, IEEE 802.11, VoIP, cellular systems and other known frameworks and standards.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 14). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’634 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’634 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 4–29 (describing in the “Background” section of the ’634 patent a “network connection between two endpoints” and known methods of reaching “full effective bandwidth capacity” in a network).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner notes that it proposed a construction for the claim term “geographical area” in the district court case, but states that it “do[es] not believe proposing a construction for the term is necessary in this proceeding because the relied upon teachings of the prior art references are consistent with examples of ‘geographical area’ included in the ’634 patent [S]pecification.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Board need not engage in express claim construction at this stage of the proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 5. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Erskine teaches or suggests the second requirement of limitation [1c], i.e., “initiating the next network connection . . . with a transmission bandwidth based on the parameter values for the past network connection.” Petitioner’s theory is that (1) the QoS parameters in Erskine are for a “past” connection from one zone to another, (2) the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth is “based on” the QoS parameters, and (3) a new call only proceeds if the transmission bandwidth needed for the call added to the current bandwidth being used over the interzone link is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth, so Erskine therefore teaches a call with a transmission bandwidth determined “based on” the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth (which in turn is determined “based on” the QoS parameters). See Pet. 27–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–60 (similar testimony from Dr. Crovella). As Patent Owner points out, however, Erskine only makes “a binary, accept/reject decision as to whether to allow a new call to proceed based on a comparison between the bandwidth needed for the call and a predetermined ‘sliding maximum interzone bandwidth value.’” See Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Specifically, the additional bandwidth that would be needed for the call is added to the current bandwidth being used on the interzone link; if the sum of those values is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth for the link, the call “proceeds”; otherwise, it is “blocked.” Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 36–40, col. 6, l. 55–col. 7, l. 10, col. 8, ll. 36–43, col. 9, ll. 9–26, col. 10, ll. 23–25 (the sum is compared to the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth “to determine whether enough bandwidth is available to proceed with the new call”), Fig. 3 (steps 308, 310, and 312). Erskine repeatedly refers to the bandwidth for the new call as the amount of bandwidth that is “necessary” or “required” to handle the call. See, e.g., id. at col. 1, ll. 43–57 (“an amount of bandwidth necessary to handle the new call”), col. 6, ll. 61–64 (“the additional bandwidth required (of the new call)”), col. 8, ll. 36–40 (“the bandwidth necessary for the new call”), col. 9, ll. 16–21 (“the anticipated additional bandwidth necessary for the new call”), 54–56 (“the bandwidth amount the new call will utilize (if connected)”), col. 10, ll. 21–23 (same), 41–43 (same), col. 12, ll. 1–2 (“an amount of bandwidth necessary to handle the new call”). It is that value—determined prior to the addition and comparison to the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth—that will be used for the new call if it is allowed to “proceed[].” Id. at col. 6, ll. 64–67 (if the sum is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth, the call “proceeds” and “the QoS table is updated with the additional bandwidth used by that call”). Erskine does not describe the transmission bandwidth for the new call as being based on any parameter values for a past network connection, but rather as “whatever bandwidth the system determined is necessary for the additional call.” See Prelim. Resp. 8–9. In other words, the transmission bandwidth needed for a new call is predetermined and independent of whatever the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth is currently. See id.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,944,634
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.