• Samsara Inc. v. Motive Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2026 · IPR2025-00574 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed video overlay and transmission for manual review.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s contentions in this ground do not cure the issues for limitations 1D and 1E. Petitioner’s contentions in this ground involve combining Khan and Ali’s teachings of identifying a horizon line and lane lines with Choe. For example, Petitioner argues that “[u]sing predictive models for Choe’s lane and horizon prediction would have combined known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” and that “[i]mplementing these known mathematical models in Choe’s calibration system, according to their known functions, would have yielded predictable results.” Pet. 39. Petitioner further argues that “[u]sing predictive models for Choe’s lane and horizon prediction would have used a known technique (predictive models) to improve similar devices in the same way” and that “[u]sing predictive models for Choe’s lane and horizon prediction would have also applied a known technique (predictive models) to a known device (a manual annotator device) ready for improvement.” Pet. 40. Petitioner’s proposed combination, therefore, still relies on Choe’s teachings of transmitting an overlaid image to an annotator device. We note that Petitioner asserts that, “[o]nce Khan in view of Ali identifies the horizon and lane lines, it overlays the horizon line and/or lane lines on the video, as shown in the screenshots below.” Pet. 41–42. Although Petitioner mentions Khan and Ali’s teachings with respect to video here, Petitioner does not adequately explain how the teaching of an overlaid video would be combined with Choe’s single image annotator teachings. As discussed above, Choe discloses transmitting a single overlaid image to the annotator” slip op. at 23

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

    “Thus, Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence and argument to explain how the additional teachings of Khan and Ali teach limitations 1D and 1E in combination with Choe. Petitioner, therefore, has not demonstrated unpatentability of claims 1–5 by a preponderance of the evidence. F. Obviousness over Choe and Workman (Claims 1–4) Petitioner asserts that claims 1–4 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Choe and Workman. Pet. 47–52; Pet. Reply 26–30. Petitioner asserts that, “if [Patent Owner] alleges that Choe does not explicitly disclose which predictive models it uses or whether it uses predictive models to identify the horizon line, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have searched for references that use predictive models and how such models were used,” which “would have led to Workman, which discloses predictive models to identify the horizon line.” Pet. 47. According to Petitioner, “[u]sing Workman’s predictive model to identify the horizon line would also have merely been combining known elements ([convolutional neural networks (CNNs)] and annotation for camera calibration) according to known methods to yield predictable results and used known techniques (CNNs) to improve similar devices in the same way.” Pet. 48–49. Thus, Petitioner relies on Workman to teach a predictive model to identify a horizon line. See Pet. 47–49. Choe with respect to limitations 1D and 1E. Indeed, Workman involves horizon line estimation in single images. See Ex. 1011, 10 (§ 5) (“We introduced Horizon Lines in the Wild (HLW), a new dataset for single image horizon line estimation, to address the limitations of existing horizon line detection datasets.”). Petitioner, therefore, has not demonstrated unpatentability of claims 1–4 by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner criticizes Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for not requiring “any training or experience in ‘automotive systems,’ precisely what the ’580 [p]atent relates to.” PO Resp. 7. According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a training and/or experience in design of software for camera/sensor systems in the automotive industry.” PO Resp. 8–9 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 35).” slip op. at 5

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

    “C. Claim Construction We need not construe expressly any claim terms to decide the issues before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 6

  Patent outcomesUS 11,875,580 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,875,580
• 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
• Lzlabs GmbH v. International Business Machines CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00274 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 10–12, 16, and 17 were not shown unpatentable because Loderer did not teach a target machine condition code.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 9

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

    “c. Analysis We agree with Patent Owner. On this record, we find that Loderer does not teach or suggest the recited “target machine condition code.” Loderer says that “[t]he object of [its] invention is . . . to specify a method for simulating a condition code when porting hardware-specific program code from a source hardware to a target hardware that is not providing for condition code.” Ex. 1005, col. 1, para. 5 (emphasis added). Loderer’s claims are directed to “[a] method for simulating a condition code (CC), used for the execution of hardware-specific program code (PCU) for a source hardware (M1), in the program code (PCZ), obtained following transformation, for a differing target hardware (M2) with a machine architecture which operates without a condition code (CC).” Id., claim 1. In other words, Loderer’s target machine does not support condition codes, let alone a “target machine condition code.” Accordingly, Loderer does not teach or suggest a “target machine condition code.”” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,713,289 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,713,289
• 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
• Dril-Quip, Inc. v. FMC Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2022 · PGR2021-00049 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Maersk or Broussard, due to missing claim limitations and insufficient motivation to modify.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Patent Owner contends this person “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or similar subject matter, and at least approximately two years of work or research experience in subsea oil and gas completion systems related to the analysis, design, development, and/or manufacturing of equipment for subsea completion systems for use in subsea oil and gas wells.” PO Resp. 16; Ex. 2002 ¶ 11. Thus, the parties essentially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art to be applied in this proceeding. Their agreement is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’921 patent and the prior art of record. Further, we would reach the same decision regardless of whether we adopt Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s formulation. We therefore do not need to delve into any fine distinctions between the two formulations.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “However, Maersk’s other two seal barriers—a ring seal, and a production packer—both appear to be passive barriers. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 60 (annotating Ex. 1019 to identify the ring seal); Ex. 1031 ¶ 33 (stating that passive barriers “include, inter alia . . . packers”). Dr. Hilbert does not explain persuasively why adding a third passive barrier would materially improve the sealing versus Maersk’s three existing barriers, so as to justify the extensive modifications required to re-route the annular fluid through the bore stab. See Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 33–35; id. ¶¶ 13–44 (discussing some of the modifications required). Further, Mr. Parks persuasively testifies, in opposition to Dr. Hilbert’s motivation testimony, that “deeper wells and increased annulus fluid pressure would not have led a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to modify Maersk to provide additional protective barriers.” Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 58, 60–63 (emphasis added). Some of this testimony has already been cited above. Additionally, Mr. Parks notably served on the editorial committee for API 17D. See id. ¶¶ 6, 63. He testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “recognized that API 17D does not support” Dr. Hilbert’s testimony, “because API 17D’s two-barrier requirement is not dependent on depth or pressure.” Id. ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1022, 158 (§ 9.2.7)) (emphasis added). In particular: “there are practical considerations underlying the API 17D requirement for two barriers, and the lack of any specification for more than two barriers.” Id. ¶ 63. This testimony is supported by API 17D, which requires a minimum of two seal barriers for any system with a rated working pressure falling within the entire 5000–15000 psi range contemplated by API 17D. See Ex. 1022, 158 (§§ 9.2.7–9.2.8). Mr. Parks further testifies: “Two barriers, appropriately specified for” slip op. at 43

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “1. “production/annulus bore stab” In the Institution Decision, we determined the preamble of claim 1 (“A production/annulus bore stab”) is a limitation to the claim, which was a disputed issue at the time. See Inst. Dec. 16–20. Neither party has objected to our preliminary determination in their post-institution briefs. See, e.g., PO Resp. 15–16; Pet. Reply; Tr. 8:24–9:13. We, therefore, again conclude here that the preamble of claim 1 is a limitation to the claim, for the reasons provided in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We start our analysis with the claim language. The claim term in dispute is simply a “cylindrical” outer surface. The parties do not cite, and we do not discern, any other contextual claim language that might elucidate or limit the plain and ordinary meaning of “cylindrical.” Petitioner’s gloss on this term as connoting “an overall cylinder-like shape” is an unpersuasive attempt to broaden the meaning of the plain term “cylindrical.” It also would unhelpfully replace our present inquiry (What is a “cylindrical outer surface”?) with yet another inquiry (What is “an overall cylinder-like shape”?). Turning to the ’921 patent specification, we find that it discloses three different and distinct cylindrical outer surfaces: outermost cylindrical surface 102S, first cylindrical outer surface 102X, and second cylindrical outer surface 102Y. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6, 3:47–51, 3:65–4:5. The distinctness of these three surfaces can be seen in Figures 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Petitioner’s attempt to combine these three distinct outer cylindrical surfaces, into one allegedly cylindrical outer surface (see Petitioner’s yellow annotations to Figure 6, supra), is not supported by the ’921 patent specification, which never describes the entire axial extent of the outer surface of bore stab body 102 as being “cylindrical.”” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,689,921 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,921
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com LLC et al. v. VB Assets, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2022 · IPR2020-01367 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–36 were not shown unpatentable because Kennewick did not teach the claimed ambiguity of words having different meanings in different contexts or the required context identification.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) “would have at least a Bachelor-level degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field in computing technology, and two years of experience with automatic speech recognition and natural language understanding, or equivalent education, research experience, or knowledge.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion, and Patent Owner and its declarant, Dr. Gershman, both apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Resp. 3. On this record and given the absence of any dispute, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 8

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” 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)). In its Petition, Petitioner asks us to construe the “implicit hypothesis” term of claims 38, 40, and 42. Pet. 7–8. As discussed above, however, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer that eliminated these claims from this proceeding. Petitioner does not ask us to construe any terms in the remaining challenged claims. See id.; see generally Reply. Patent Owner also does not ask us to construe any claim terms. See generally Response. On this record, we decline to adopt constructions of any claims. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “Dr. Smyth’s declaration testimony about words having different meanings in different contexts is unpersuasive. Dr. Smyth testifies that the keyword “‘temperature’ could be interpreted as an outdoor temperature or as a body temperature depending on context.” See Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. This testimony is not persuasive because the word “temperature” refers to a measurement of warmth or coolness in both examples. That is, “temperature” has the same meaning in both contexts. Moreover, as Dr. Gershman points out, Kennewick does not teach or suggest a body temperature. Ex. 2001 ¶ 26. Dr. Smyth’s testimony is unpersuasive for this additional reason. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 69.” slip op. at 17

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

    “forth by both parties, we are not persuaded that Kennewick teaches or suggests that the word “temperature” has different meanings in different contexts, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. See Resp. 4–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23–27. As detailed above, Patent Owner’s arguments and the supporting testimony of Dr. Gershman are consistent with the ordinary and customary language of the claims, the specification of the ’681 patent, and the disclosure of Kennewick. See id. In contrast, Petitioner’s arguments are inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language and the specification of the ’681 patent, and are not adequately supported by the disclosure of Kennewick. On this record, and having considered the evidence and arguments put forth by both parties, we also are not persuaded that Kennewick teaches or suggests that the phrase “what about flight one hundred and twenty too?” has different meanings in different contexts, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. See Resp. 6–7; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28–30. Moreover, even if the “flight” example did describe two contexts (one in which “flight 122” exists, and one in which it does not), Petitioner’s argument would still fail because Petitioner has offered no persuasive evidence that Kennewick teaches or suggests identifying one of these two alleged contexts based on Kennewick’s short-term shared information (dialog history) and long-term shared information (user profiles) as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. For the reasons explained above, Patent Owner’s arguments and the supporting testimony of Dr. Gershman are consistent with and supported by the claims and specification of the ’681 patent and the disclosure of Kennewick. See Resp. 4–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23–27. In contrast, Petitioner’s arguments are not consistent with or supported by the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, the specification of the ’681 patent, or the disclosure of Kennewick.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,073,681 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,073,681
• Unified Patents, LLC v. 2bcom, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2021 · IPR2020-00996 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12–17 and 19–21 were not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because Petitioner failed to prove that Nüsser was publicly accessible prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “under 35 U.S.C. § 102 “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication.’” Jazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). A reference is considered publicly accessible if it was “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id. at 1355–56 (quoting In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)); see also Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 10

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Because these arguments relate to a print version of the conference proceedings, they amount to new arguments that Petitioner chose not to make in the Petition and are not responsive to Patent Owner’s arguments asserting flaws in Petitioner’s contentions and evidence, which related to whether the digital version of Nüsser, presented here as Exhibit 1006, was available on the critical date. Rather, they raise new issues regarding actual dissemination of or the availability of a print version of the proceedings for the conference. See Acceleration Bay, LLC., 908 F.3d at 775; Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016). New evidence may be submitted to respond to arguments raised in a prior brief or as rebuttal evidence, however, in this case, we do not agree that the new evidence and arguments here are responsive to Patent Owner’s arguments, but rather they appear to take a “new direction with a new approach.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019 (“CTPG”),6 73–75. Petitioner does not show or assert that the print proceedings contain the same version of Nüsser as that presented as Exhibit 1006. Nor has Petitioner filed a copy of Nüsser from a print version of the proceedings” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “B. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner moves to exclude all or part of Exhibits 1006, 1007, 1010, 1012, 1015–1018, 1023–1028, 1036–1040, 1045, and 1046. PO Mot. Exclude 1. Because we ultimately find for Patent Owner without excluding the documents listed in Patent Owner’s Motion, we dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,127,210 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,127,210
• Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00687 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10, and 14 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that Ladd’s speech-recognition device recognizes speech without predefined voice patterns.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The parties agree that this term at least requires a “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without . . . using predefined voice patterns,” but disagree as to whether it should require a device that recognizes spoken words “without adapting to individual speakers.” PO Resp. 21 (“The proper construction of ‘speaker-independent speech recognition device’ is consistent with the construction issued by the Western District of Texas, though it does not include all of that court’s construction, and requires at least ‘speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.’”); Reply 2 (“For purposes of this IPR, Apple submits the Court’s construction should be applied.”). The dispute regarding whether the term should preclude adapting to individual speakers does not impact any issue in this proceeding, and Petitioner has agreed to Patent Owner’s construction in this proceeding, so long as we do not resolve the dispute over adapting to individual speakers. Tr. 12:24–13:4 (“JUDGE McKONE: So you’d be happy if we essentially adopted Parus’s construction with a footnote or some kind of note that we’re not resolving the issue of adapting to individual speakers? MS. BAILEY: That would be fine for purposes of this IPR, Your Honor.”). We adopt the parties’ agreed approach. For purposes of this proceeding, “speaker-independent speech recognition device” means “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” This is consistent with the ’084 patent’s statement (relied on by both parties) that “[t]he voice browsing system recognizes naturally spoken voice commands and is speaker-independent; it does not have to be trained to recognize the” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in interactive voice response systems, automated information retrieval systems, or related technologies. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). On the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for essentially three reasons. First, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion. See generally PO Resp. Also, neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). C. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–7, 10, and 14 (Grounds 1–3)” slip op. at 13

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

    “speech-recognition device” discussed supra, this limitation requires a “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” A 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. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). 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. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner must demonstrate obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d); see also Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to” slip op. at 25

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “A motion to exclude should be directed to the admissibility of evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64; Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 79 (November 2019) (“TPG”) (“A motion to exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). According to the Trial Practice Guide, a motion to exclude is not a vehicle to “address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” TPG 79. Rather, “[i]f a party believes that a brief filed by the opposing party raises new issues, is accompanied by belatedly presented evidence, or otherwise exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply, it may request authorization to file a motion to strike.” Id. at 80. Patent Owner did not file a motion to strike. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude does not address the admissibility of Dr. Terveen’s testimony. Rather, it argues that the testimony exceeds the proper scope of reply evidence, either because it does not respond to the Patent Owner Response or because Petitioner did not follow our rules in seeking to submit supplemental information. See generally Mot. Excl. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude does not state a proper basis for excluding evidence and, therefore, we deny the motion for that reason.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,451,084 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,451,084
• Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00686 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18–21, and 25–30 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed speaker-independent speech recognition device.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “predefined voice patterns,” but disagree as to whether it should require a device that recognizes spoken words “without adapting to individual speakers.” PO Resp. 21 (“The proper construction of ‘speaker-independent speech recognition device’ is consistent with the construction issued by the Western District of Texas, though it does not include all of that court’s construction, and requires at least ‘speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.’”); Reply 2 (“For purposes of this IPR, Apple submits the Court’s construction should be applied.”). The dispute as to whether the term should preclude adapting to individual speakers does not impact any issue in this proceeding, and Petitioner has agreed to Patent Owner’s construction in this proceeding, so long as we do not resolve the dispute over adapting to individual speakers. Tr. 12:24–13:4 (“JUDGE McKONE: So you’d be happy if we essentially adopted Parus’s construction with a footnote or some kind of note that we’re not resolving the issue of adapting to individual speakers? MS. BAILEY: That would be fine for purposes of this IPR, Your Honor.”). We adopt the parties’ agreed approach. For purposes of this proceeding, “speaker-independent speech recognition device” means “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” This is consistent with the ’431 patent’s statement (relied on by both parties) that “[t]he voice browsing system recognizes naturally spoken voice commands and is speaker-independent; it does not have to be trained to recognize the voice patterns of each individual user. Such speech recognition systems use phonemes to recognize spoken words and not predefined voice patterns.” Ex. 1001, 4:38–43; see also PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:34–43);” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Terveen, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in interactive voice response systems, automated information retrieval systems, or related technologies, such as web-based information retrieval systems.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. Also, neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “A motion to exclude should be directed to the admissibility of evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64; TPG 79 (“A motion to exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). According to the Trial Practice Guide, a motion to exclude is not a vehicle to “address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” TPG 79. Rather, “[i]f a party believes that a brief filed by the opposing party raises new issues, is accompanied by belatedly presented evidence, or otherwise exceeds the” slip op. at 41

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “corresponding to an unclaimed second step not part of speech recognition would be an impermissible new argument presented for the first time in the Reply. As explained in the Board’s Trial Practice Guide, Petitioner’s change in direction exceeds the proper scope of a reply: Generally, a reply or sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, except as noted above. “Respond,” in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing. While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. The Board is not required to attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply or sur-reply. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 74 (November 2019) (“TPG”).7 If Petitioner is arguing that Ladd’s description of voice patterns and speech patterns is not describing speaker-independent speech recognition, then Petitioner’s Reply does not simply respond to the Patent Owner Response or attempt to crystalize the issues in dispute. Rather, the Petition expressly relied on certain disclosure in Ladd to show the functionality claimed in limitation 1[c], while the Reply attempts to re-cast that same disclosure as describing functionality separate from that of limitation 1[c]. This would be a new theory.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,076,431 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,076,431

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.