• Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,023,203
• Tennant Company v. Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · IPR2021-00625 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Remand

  Claims 13, 14, and 17–27 were not shown unpatentable because Tennant did not establish that Wikey or Davies inherently disclosed the claimed microbubbles and nanobubbles.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded our anticipation determinations as to claims 13, 14, and 17–27. Tennant, 11.1 The Federal Circuit further stated: “Because we vacate and remand to the Board to consider Tennant’s anticipation argument, we do not reach Tennant’s obviousness arguments (which depends on its contention that either Wikey or Davies produce nanobubbles).” Id. at 11. On September 19, 2024, we authorized the parties to file supplemental briefing, stating also that the “parties are not authorized to present new factual assertions, provide additional exhibits, or raise new arguments beyond those directed to the issues raised in the remand.” Ex. 3001. Pursuant to this authorization, Petitioner filed an Opening Brief on Remand (Paper 61; “Pet. Br. Rem.”) in support of its contentions. Patent Owner filed a Lead Brief on Remand (Paper 62; “PO Br. Rem.”) in support of its contentions. Petitioner filed a Reply Brief on Remand (Paper 66; “Pet. Reply Br. Rem.”). Patent Owner filed a Responsive Brief on Remand (Paper 65; “PO Resp. Br. Rem.”).” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, and in line with our previous determination that “Wikey appears to disclose each limitation of claim 13 except ‘microbubbles and nanobubbles having a bubble diameter of less than 50 microns’” (Final Dec. 20), we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Wikey inherently discloses microbubbles or nanobubbles. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Wikey discloses every limitation of claim 13.” slip op. at 56

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

    “The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded our anticipation determinations as to claims 13, 14, and 17–27. Tennant, 11.1 The Federal Circuit further stated: “Because we vacate and remand to the Board to consider Tennant’s anticipation argument, we do not reach Tennant’s obviousness arguments (which depends on its contention that either Wikey or Davies produce nanobubbles).” Id. at 11.” slip op. at 3

  Patent outcomesUS RE45,415 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00666 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required determination that access occurred during a predetermined period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art. See PO Resp. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00701 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the prior-art combinations did not establish a determination that devices accessed the Internet during a predetermined period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art. See PO Resp. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition. Q So is it your opinion that the – the limitation 1B requires that the system determines whether or not the accesses by the -- the two electronic devices occurred within a predetermined period of time? A Yes.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01281 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations did not establish a determination that devices accessed the Internet during a predetermined period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at critical time. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The resolution of this question is important because it allows us to “maintain[] objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 3 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0113674 A1, published May 15, 2008 (Ex. 1003, “Baig”). 4 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0128547 A1, published July 1, 2004 (Ex. 1006, “Laidlaw”). 5 U.S. Pat. No. 6,427,170 B1, issued July 30, 2002 (Ex. 1007, “Sitaraman”). 6 Harley Hahn, The Internet Complete Reference (2d ed. 1996) (Ex. 1008, “Hahn”). 7 U.S. Pat. No. 7,730,030 B1, issued June 1, 2010 (Ex. 1009, “Xu”). 8 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0282328 A1, published Dec. 14, 2006 (Ex. 1010, “Gerace”). 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 7

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

    “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b) (2023). Our rule adopts the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts, which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Under this standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. G+ Communications, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2024 · IPR2023-00441 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 and 17–18 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not disclose a “pre-set UE number” under the adopted construction.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded to maintain our preliminary construction. Indeed, as already noted, Petitioner does not argue for the preliminary construction. Neither does Petitioner question the validity of the reasons given for the District Court’s construction. Rather, Petitioner repeats its position that it “takes no position on the District Court’s construction” and Petitioner does not have any reason “as to why that construction is wrong or right.” Tr. 18:24–19:6. We do not see any reason to construe “pre-set UE number” contrary to what the District Court has determined. Indeed, we find the District Court’s analysis of the issue highly persuasive and adopt it as our own. And Petitioner has not provided any argument regarding construction of the term, simply taking no position on its correctness.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner has forfeited the indefiniteness argument. Regardless, we are given no reason to find construction of the two means-plus function terms impossible given the District Court determination. We agree that the scope of the terms is based on a means-plus function analysis. We are not persuaded that structure is not sufficiently described.” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues that this argument was not presented in the Petition and is too late and/or incorrect. Sur-reply 5. We agree with Patent Owner. Neither Patent Owner nor the Board were given any notice of this argument in the Petition. Regardless, we find no merit in Petitioner’s argument. Fundamentally, our jurisdiction regarding patentability is limited to Sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). We do not find that claim 18 is so indefinite that a patentability determination is impossible. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 802, 812–813 (Fed. Circ. 2021) (claim construction obligation “does not mean that the Board must reach a determination of the patentability of a claim on the presented prior-art grounds if such a determination is rendered impossible because of the indefiniteness of an essential claim limitation.”). Indeed, the District Court determined that the corresponding structure is a processor programmed to either (1) descramble a Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) of Downlink Control Information (DCI) for scheduling the RAR according to a pre-set RA-RNTI or an RA-RNTI corresponding to the preamble, and receive the RAR, the RAR including at least one TCRNTI and/or at least one Uplink (UL) grant. Ex. 2008, 23 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:4). (2) determine corresponding RA-RNTIs according to respective IDs and/or preambles, descramble a CRC of DCI for scheduling the RAR according to the corresponding RA-RNTIs, and receive corresponding RARs, the RAR including a TCRNTI and/or a UL grant allocated to the first UE or second UE.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Our construction of “pre-set UE number” is dispositive of this proceeding. See Section III.B.1 above. Petitioner agrees that both Li and Kim “don’t disclose that the message 3 includes a ‘pre-set number of UEs’” under our final construction of “pre-set UE number.” Pet. Reply 4; see also Tr. 7:20–22 (“Under [the District Court] construction, Li and Kim would not disclose Claim 1, at least Claim 1, of the ’430 patent”); 11:3–17 (Petitioner’s counsel arguing claim 18 is indefinite but agreeing neither claim 1 nor 18 have been shown unpatentable under the District Court construction of “preset UE number”). For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has not shown a by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 18 are anticipated by Li.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,448,430 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,448,430
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. G+ Communications, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · IPR2022-01598 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 6, 8–11, 15, 17, and 18 not shown unpatentable over Kannan because Kannan did not disclose the construed transmission blocks.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are not persuaded that “single entity” requires a separate construction or additional clarification, presumably by “testimonial evidence.” See Pet. Supp. Br. 4 n.1. Here, we need not determine the precise outer bounds of the term “transmission block,” including all the different types of single entities, because the Board is required to construe the claim to only the extent necessary to resolve the dispute. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The relevant context for understanding what is a single entity is the disclosures of Kannan and the ’443 patent regarding “code block,” “transport block,” and “transmission block.” Those are the “single entities” and are the focus of the dispute. For the preceding reasons we adopt our preliminary construction of “transmission blocks” as our final construction. No additional terms are in dispute that require construction.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “invention of the ’443 patent “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of wireless communication technology.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–24). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill and “takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art” because “it does not affect the ultimate analysis.” PO Resp. 11–12. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because we are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’443 patent. The proposed level of skill is consistent with the field of the invention as indicated by the cited prior art.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Kannan is based on the OSI model and describes control and data transmission on the MAC and PHY layers. Ex. 1006 ¶ 63. Kannan explains that “[w]ireless devices may exchange data using Medium Access Control (MAC) layer units known as transport blocks that may include a number of CBs.” Id. ¶ 8. Further, at the PHY layer, “a transport block may be divided into CBs.” Id. ¶ 52. Kannan continues to describe that “code blocks” “may be bundled into multiple bundles having a certain number of CBs.” Id. These parts of Kannan support the Akl Rebuttal Declaration conclusion’s regarding the OSI model in Kannan. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 31–37, 49–50. Thus, we credit the Akl Rebuttal Declaration on this issue (id.) over Dr. Ding’s testimony (Ex. 1016 ¶ 13) because it is better supported by Kannan. Based on the preceding, we find that “code blocks” on the PHY layer are found only with “transport blocks” and are not a “separate entity.” See PO Supp. Br. 2.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Kannan is based on the OSI model and describes control and data transmission on the MAC and PHY layers. Ex. 1006 ¶ 63. Kannan explains that “[w]ireless devices may exchange data using Medium Access Control (MAC) layer units known as transport blocks that may include a number of CBs.” Id. ¶ 8. Further, at the PHY layer, “a transport block may be divided into CBs.” Id. ¶ 52. Kannan continues to describe that “code blocks” “may be bundled into multiple bundles having a certain number of CBs.” Id. These parts of Kannan support the Akl Rebuttal Declaration conclusion’s regarding the OSI model in Kannan. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 31–37, 49–50. Thus, we credit the Akl Rebuttal Declaration on this issue (id.) over Dr. Ding’s testimony (Ex. 1016 ¶ 13) because it is better supported by Kannan. Based on the preceding, we find that “code blocks” on the PHY layer are found only with “transport blocks” and are not a “separate entity.” See PO Supp. Br. 2. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that claims 1, 8, 10, and 17 are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,594,443 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,594,443
• Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00679 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 20, and 21 were not proven unpatentable; the asserted obviousness grounds failed for insufficient motivation to combine, teaching away, or missing claim limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed claims 13–19 on July 25, 2023, rendering Petitioner’s Grounds 4, 9, and 10 moot. Ex. 2008. Thus, our Final Written Decision does not address Petitioner’s Grounds 4, 9, and 10. The Board heard oral arguments in an in-person hearing conducted on July 27, 2023. See Paper 23.” slip op. at 4

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(“POSITA”) would have had a master’s or bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a related degree, and either at least 3–5 years of experience (with a master’s degree), or at least 5–6 years of experience (with a bachelor’s degree), in composite materials or additive manufacturing. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art accurately reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date . . . [, but r]egardless [of] the level of skill, . . . the Petition does not show the challenged claims are unpatentable.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art. See id. at 15 (“Patent Owner reserves the right to propose a level of ordinary skill in the art later in this proceeding, or in other proceedings.”). On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Although a more specific definition is not necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references. Neither party, however, advances information explaining how or why the result in this case would change based on the level of ordinary skill determined by the Board.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner advances no specific construction of any claim term, but rather proposes that “claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner asserts that the term “anchor” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which, according to Patent Owner, is “contact to which the path of composite material is adhered to enable pulling of the path.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2006, 2, 53). Petitioner responds that “[i]n the parallel litigation, the Court has construed ‘anchor point’ and ‘anchor’ as ‘a contact point to which the path is affixed and that serves as an origin point for the formation of the path.’” Reply 3. On the complete record, we determine that no claim term needs an express construction to resolve the controversy. C. GROUND 1 – ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 20 AND 21 OVER LIPSKER” slip op. at 9

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

    “combining multiple embodiments from a single prior art reference (Resp. 31), i.e., “there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). On this record, Petitioner fails to provide any such motivation to combine the embodiment in Lipsker’s Figure 2 with those of Figures 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 to arrive at the subject matter of claim 20. Pet. 23–31. Rather, Petitioner merely points to the disparate embodiments of Figures 2, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 and portions of Lipsker’s disclosure pertaining to those embodiments, and asserts that Lipsker “discloses” the individual limitations recited in claim 20. See, e.g., id. at 25 (Petitioner, relying on Figure 2, asserting that “Lipsker discloses the preamble of Claim 20”), 27 (Petitioner, relying on Figure 5, asserting that “Lipsker discloses Element 20[a]”), 28 (quoting Lipsker’s descriptions of wire and adhesive dispensed separately as depicted in Figure 2, and asserting “Lipsker discloses Element 20 [c]”), 29 (pointing to Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C and asserting “Lipsker discloses Element 20[d]”). Pointing to disparate embodiments without providing a sufficient motivation to combine them is not enough to establish the obviousness of claim 20 as a whole. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (holding that a claim “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art”).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 10,744,708 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,744,708
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00633 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable because Lurie, alone or combined with the other cited references, did not teach proactive task retrieval; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Based on the fully developed trial record, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “proactively” and, therefore, we construe this claim term as initiating change rather than reacting to events (i.e., not being told to act or not reactionary). Beginning with the intrinsic evidence, both parties appear to agree that the ’275 patent does not define the claim term “proactively” with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. For example, during the oral hearing, counsel for Amazon indicated that the specification of the ’275 patent provides “some examples” of what it means to act “proactively,” but it does not provide a lexicographic definition. See Tr. 7:8–11:21. In the same vein, during oral argument, counsel for Swarm stated that “[w]e haven’t advocated for anything other than the plain and ordinary meaning of proactively.” Id. at 34:23–24. We” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In its Petition, Amazon argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and about five years of industry or academic research experience in parallel or distributed computing, system architecture, or an equivalent.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–44). Amazon further argues that “[a] post-graduate degree or additional formal education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. In its Patent Owner Response, Swarm does not address the level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. Accordingly, based on the fully developed trial record, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. That is, we adopt Amazon’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’275 patent and the asserted prior art. We apply this assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Amazon’s declarant, Dr. Lowenthal, provides testimony that supports our finding above. In his supplemental declaration in support of the Reply, Dr. Lowenthal testifies that, “[c]ertainly, Lurie initially sends an initial notification of ‘one or more tasks . . . becoming available.’ After that, . . . TCW [270] will obtain and process a first task.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 58 (quoting Ex. 1007 ¶ 86) (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 87, 88) (second two alterations in original). He also testifies that the “one initial notification . . . kick[s] off the procedure” because it “informs all registered TCWs [270] that one or more tasks are available.” Id. ¶ 59. We credit the aforementioned testimony of Dr. Lowenthal’s because it is consistent with the disclosures in Lurie that we highlight above, most notably the kickoff notification.” slip op. at 30

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

    “As we explain in the claim construction section above, we accord the claim term “proactively” an ordinary and customary meaning of initiating change rather than reacting to events (i.e., not being told to act or not reactionary). See supra Section II.A. Contrary to our construction, Lurie’s TCW 270 only takes a task after receiving a kickoff notification and, therefore, it is not acting proactively. That is, Lurie’s TCW 270 reacts to the kickoff notification that a task is available or otherwise appears in object exchange repository 662 rather than initiates change by seeking a task from object exchange repository 662 without being notified to do so.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,592,275 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,592,275
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00141 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Juniper failed to show claims 1–7 and 9–17 unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground because the combinations did not teach adding a co-processor without any communication with the controller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In its Petition, Juniper argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would’ve had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one or more years of experience in the design and development of parallel or distributed processing systems.” Pet. 11. Juniper further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art could, alternatively, “have a master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and less design and development experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60, 61). In its Patent Owner Response, Swarm appears to agree with Juniper because it repeats verbatim the same assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art offered by Juniper in its Petition. Compare PO Resp. 11, with Pet. 11. Accordingly, based on the fully developed trial record, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. on Inst. 10. That is, we adopt Juniper’s proposed formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except that we delete the qualifier “or more” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound and, therefore, precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We apply this modified version of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In any event, even if we were to consider Juniper’s downstream theory, we do not find this belated argument persuasive. To support its downstream theory, Juniper relies on the Dr. Weissman’s testimony that “[t]echniques for avoiding [broadcast packets flooding the network] are well known in the art and may include downstream devices dropping, or filtering, broadcast packets to minimize processing load.” Ex. 1031 ¶ 36. We decline to credit this testimony for two reasons. First, apart from generically asserting that dropping or filtering broadcast packets minimizes processing load, Dr. Weissman does not attempt to explain how Leong’s surveying unit would be considered a “downstream device” from a newly added co-processor, much less why Leong’s surveying unit would need to filter or drop a broadcast packet sent by the newly added co-processor. Second, Dr. Weissman does not cite to any underlying evidence to support his testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 32

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

    “In any event, we need not construe any of the sixteen claim terms identified by Swarm in its Patent Owner Response because, when evaluating the merits of Juniper’s Petition in light of the arguments and evidence presented by Swarm during trial, the scope and meaning of the sixteen claim terms are not in controversy. Accordingly, it is not necessary to reach those particular issues for purposes of deciding whether Juniper has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). In our obviousness evaluation below, we address the scope and meaning of the claim term “communication,” as this term pertains to the combined teachings of Leong and AppleTalkBook contested by the parties. More specifically, we address below whether Juniper’s proposed combination of Leong and AppleTalkBook teaches or suggests adding a coprocesser “on a plug-and-play basis without any communication with the controller,” as recited in each of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 of the ’275 patent.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We begin our analysis with the plain language of independent claims 1, 6, and 11. Each of these independent claims explicitly requires adding a co-processor “without any communication with the controller.” Ex. 1001, 14:40–44, 15:30–34, 16:30–34 (emphasis added). As we explained in the Final Written Decision in IPR2021-01445, the use of the word “any” precludes both communication with a response and communication without a response. IPR2021-01445, Paper 62 at 25. Turning to the disclosure in the specification of the ’275 patent cited by Juniper, we do not agree that those disclosures support limiting “communication” to only two-way messaging. The relevant passage in the specification states the following: Each cell 12 [is] configured to perform one or a plurality of specialized tasks, as illustrated in the following sequence of events. During a poll phase each cell periodically sends an agent to the task pool until a matching task is found. To facilitate this matching, both the cell and the task pool may be equipped with a transceiver. In the case of the task pool, the transceiver maybe [sic] located in the task pool itself or in the switching fabric to which the task pool is connected. When a task match is found within a task pool, the task pool transmits an acknowledgement to the cell. The next step is the “communication channel” phase. During the communication channel phase, the cell receives the task and begins to execute the task. In one implementation, once the first task is completed, the communication channel is maintained so that the solidar[it]y cell can fetch another task without having to repeat the “poll” and “acknowledge” phase. Ex. 1001, 6:33–48 (emphases added). We fail to see how each cell 12 transmitting an acknowledgement message during the “poll phase” or each cell 12 receiving a task during the “communication channel” phase implicates adding a co-processor “on a plug-and-play basis,” as required by each of independent claims 1, 6, and 11. Regardless, we do not view the cited disclosure in the specification as limiting the “communication” required by these independent claims to only two-way messaging. Instead, we view the cited disclosure as merely examples of how each cell 12 may communicate with the task pool. The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit “has repeatedly ‘cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.’” Williamson v. CitrixOnline, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Stated differently, these two examples of transmitting an acknowledgment message and receiving a task in the specification, by themselves, are not enough to prevent a broad interpretation of “communication” that includes, among other things, one-way messaging that does not require a response.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,592,275 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,592,275

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.