- Kia Corp. / Toyota Motor Corp. v. Emerging Automotive LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00981 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable over the Kleve-based grounds; the Board found the Zaid-based grounds did not render their challenged claims unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pet. 2. Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). Petitioner filed an authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed an authorized Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 9, “Prelim. Sur-reply”). Trial was instituted on the asserted grounds of unpatentability. Paper 10 (“Inst. Dec.”), 56.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends express claim construction is unnecessary and states that all terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its Response. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” 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)). There are no claim terms in controversy that need be construed for our analysis.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Here, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “had at least a four-year undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, automotive engineering, or [a] closely related field and [at] least two years of experience in the field of access control systems, vehicle electronics, and/or cryptography.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–82). Dr. Almeroth supports Petitioner’s position and further testifies that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. Patent Owner does not assert a different level of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention and appears to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. See PO Resp. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Malek, explicitly adopts Petitioner’s level of skill in the art but states that his opinions would be applicable under any reasonable definition for an ordinarily skilled artisan at the critical time. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 37. For the purposes of this Decision, we too adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’188 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Additionally, we credit the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, who opines that Kleve discloses that certain restrictions are sent with the request to generate a virtual key. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 118–123. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Kleve discloses that the virtual key “enable[s] the keyless drive system for the appropriate Temporary User during a given rental period.” Id. According to Dr. Almeroth, this “indicates that rental agreement restrictions were sent with the request so that the virtual key could be associated with said restrictions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39, 68 (“Once the rental period has expired the virtual key may be reset and cleared from the VCS.”)). Dr. Almeroth further testifies that the virtual key in Kleve is always generated after the rental agreement. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39 (“[O]nce the Temporary User selects the vehicle, pays the appropriate amount and signs a consent agreement, th[e]n the system may generate a virtual key to distribute to the Temporary User and VCS.”), 68). We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Almeroth’s declaration testimony contradicts Kleve. See PO Resp. 27–29. Rather, as discussed previously, we find that Kleve’s vehicle owner can set a restriction, such as the rental start period, prior to step 214 in Kleve’s Figure 2 and that such restrictions can be associated with the e-key. We also do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that (1) Dr. Almeroth’s declaration testimony contradicts his deposition testimony or that (2) Dr. Almeroth “admitted his testimony was wrong.” See PO Sur-Reply 7 (citing Ex. 2030, 27:5–10, 27:21–28:1). In a particular embodiment to which Dr. Almeroth was citing, he noted that the e-key is always generated after the rental agreement. See Ex. 2030, 26:14–20. Then the following exchange occurs: Q. So you use typically and always. So always does not refer to all of the embodiments of Kleve, is that fair? A. I think a person of skill in the art could read Kleve and understand that there are probably multiple ways in which the flow of actions among the parties could occur. And I think thinking about a real world scenario, in most cases you have an agreement before you would generate an eKey, but maybe, maybe not. I don’t -- I don't know that the real world is necessarily cut and dry. So reading -- a person reading Kleve would understand it’s describing embodiments where it’s always the case. That might be a pretty common scenario, but I don't know that it would necessarily be a hard and fast rule in every embodiment or in the understanding a person of skill in the art would have. Id. at 28:3–20. There is nothing in the deposition testimony by Dr. Almeroth that appears inconsistent with his declaration testimony nor does there appear to be the kind of admission touted by Patent Owner. Instead, it is Dr. Malek who takes an overly narrow view of Kleve that appears inconsistent with Kleve’s disclosure when read as a whole. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 56–57. Therefore, we do not credit or agree with Dr. Malek’s testimony that Kleve teaches away from the concept of a virtual key created with the agreed-upon rental period as a restriction. See id. ¶ 57.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 9,365,188 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,365,188 - Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v. Hangzhou ZH Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2025 · PGR2024-00034 · APJ Annette R Reimers · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–19 as obvious over Unger and Smith, claim 18 also as obvious over Unger, Smith, and Hakansson, and claims 3–6, 8, 9, and 16 as indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We note that the identification of a Ph.D. as an example of “more formal education” creates a vast range of education relative to a bachelor’s degree. Thus, we treat the identification of a Ph.D. just as it is—an example—and not a requirement. In this case, “more formal education” can be satisfied by a level of education less than a Ph.D (but greater than a bachelor’s degree). Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, limited as discussed above, for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that it “does not believe any terms need to be construed to resolve the prior art issues presented in this Petition.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89). any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the proposed modification obvious for several reasons. Pet. 30. For instance, Petitioner argues that “Unger contains an express teaching, suggestion and/or motivation to incorporate an element such as Smith’s torsional spring into the lower and/or upper mount assemblies 308, 312 to facilitate attachment and detachment.” Id. Namely, Petitioner points to Unger’s disclosure that device mounts 308, 312 may be flexible or resilient so that device mounts 308, 312 may be bent to engage a portion of hearing protection device 108 and are then allowed to return to a normal state to secure communication device 104 to hearing protection device 108. Id. at 30–31 (quoting Ex. 1004, 6:20–37). Petitioner adds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this disclosure “to teach that mount arms 308, 312 could be removable from housing 304 (e.g., as mount arm 312 is in Figure 6) and/or they could be designed to be ‘flexible’ or ‘resilient’ such that they can be manipulated,” and “that ‘resilient’ is defined as ‘bouncing or springing back into shape, position, etc. after being stretched, bent, or, esp., compressed.’” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 117). Thus, according to Petitioner, this disclosure of Unger suggests using a torsion spring. Id. In addition, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Unger’s disclosure to “suggest the use of a torsion designed to impart this functionality.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 118). Petitioner also asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood that there were a limited number of ways to impart the referenced resilient or flexible ‘manipulation,’” and “would have been motivated to look to various known solutions to impart the suggested functionality, including the torsional spring mechanism of Smith that is used in a similar hearing protection device application for a similar purpose as Unger’s mounting arms (to apply a clamping force).” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–121). Other reasons for combining the references set forth by Petitioner are the proposed modification: (1) “would have involved applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results” (Pet. 39–49 (citing Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023); Ex. 1002 ¶ 131)), (2) would have constituted “combining prior art elements using known methods to achieve predictable results” (id. at 40 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); Ex. 1002 ¶ 133)); and (3) would have been “the simple substitution of one known element (i.e., Smith’s torsion spring mechanism) into another (i.e., the connection point of Unger’s lower mount arm 308 and housing 304)” (id. at 40–41 (citing Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ex. 1002 ¶ 135)). Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“i) Conclusion For the above reasons, we find, based on the record before us, that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Unger and Smith. Patent Owner does not contend that any limitations in claim 1 are absent in the combination of Unger and Smith, or that claim 1 would not have been obvious over the combination of Unger and Smith, and therefore, has waived such arguments.8” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 11,736,855 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,736,855 - PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd. v. Flip Phone Games Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00133 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Sturman and Ho; the Board found the Ho/Jiau/Choi grounds, with and without Ellis, insufficient.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We see very little difference between the parties’ respective proposals. We adopt Patent Owner’s marginally more specific proposal as it better reflects the ’089 patent. Additionally, because we would reach the same conclusions under Petitioner’s proposal, we agree with Patent Owner that this does not affect our analysis.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Consistent with Phillips, we begin with the “ordinary and customary meaning” of the words of the claims. Phillips, 415. F.3d at 1312–13 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The parties agree that the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase “background object” is consistent with the dictionary definition and means an object that is “not in the foreground.” Tr. 8:10–16; PO Resp. 8–9; Ex. 2008 (AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 2006); see also Ex. 2009 (“the scenery or ground behind something,” “the part of a painting representing what lies behind objects in the foreground”) (MERRIAM- WEBSTER DICTIONARY 2007); Ex. 2010 (“the part of a picture or pattern that is behind the main people or things in it” (MACMILLIAN ENGLISH DICTIONARY 2007); Ex. 2011 (“the ground or parts, as of a scene, situated in the rear (opposed to foreground)”) (RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY 2005). Having determined the ordinary and customary meaning, we need only look to see if there is some reason—such as the applicant acting as a lexicographer or the ordinary and customary meaning being improperly subjective—why the ordinary and customary meaning is not controlling.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We do not find that the prosecution history demonstrates that the applicant acted as a lexicographer by “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,” or “clearly express[ing] an intent to define the term” as required by Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. Instead, the language in the prosecution history is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning. That is, the applicant focuses on the location of the object relative to the area of game play, i.e., the foreground. For example, the applicant distinguishes Chu’s object as not being “background objects” because they “are featured in the forefront of [the] game play as primary objects to be manipulated or used during game play (see Chu at ¶¶ [0063]–[0065]).” Ex. 1002, 85 (emphasis added).12 The applicant continued by arguing that Chu’s objects “exist in the background, outside of the primary focus of game play and as unexpectedly interactive components, and are not themselves needed or required in order to play the game.” Id. If anything, this demonstrates an intent of the applicant to use the customary and ordinary meaning—not in the foreground—and not act as a lexicographer.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument. Under our rules, “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). We have reviewed Dr. Zagal’s testimony on this subject (see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 156–160, 163, 166, 172, 177–178) and find that it complies with our requirements. Specifically, Dr. Zagal provides his opinion and identifies specific evidence in the record that supports it. We do not find MarkForged, a nonprecedential decision, persuasive. Although MarkForged cites 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) as support for the proposition that expert testimony “is entitled to little to no weight [if] it merely parrots the Petition,” the rule is silent on that point. Patent Owner has not directed us to any rule or precedential decision that says that non- 17 The decision was affirmed by the Director. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022). conclusory testimony which cites underlying factual support, such as Dr. Zagal gives in this proceeding, is entitled to no weight.” slip op. at 49
Patent outcomesUS 8,688,089 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,688,089 - PLR Worldwide Sales Limited v. Flip Phone Games, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00200 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Hays; the Board also found claims 8 and 16 obvious over Hays and Choi.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“had an undergraduate degree in game design or development, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience working with computer gaming systems or software application development.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–69). Petitioner also contends that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education or vice versa.” Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–69). skilled artisan “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field, along with one to two years of experience developing or programming video games or video game systems, or similar types of computer systems,” but notes that a skilled artisan “may have additional education that might substitute for some of the experience, and additional substantial experience might substitute for some of the educational background.” PO Resp. 2 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 28). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s proposal does not require experience in programming video games. PO Resp. 3. However, Patent Owner states, “[t]his difference does not materially affect the analysis presented below.” PO Resp. 3. We see very little difference between the parties’ respective proposals. We adopt Patent Owner’s more specific proposal because it is consistent with the level of skill evidenced in the ’056 patent and the applied prior art, but we agree with Patent Owner that this does not affect our analysis; we would reach the same conclusions under Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The claim language itself suggests no such restrictions. Rather, all the claim language recites is video-game content that is for use in the video game. The claim language does not specify who or what must use the content or how it must be used. Thus, the claim language itself is broad and includes none of the restrictions Patent Owner would place on it.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Hays discloses that an advertiser can target particular ads at particular times, such as “air[ing] the Domino’s ad campaign” after a “game has been played for 45 minutes.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 22. Thus, an advertiser selects ads to run, and those ads become part of the pool from which the advertising matching and weighting system selects ads. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 22 (“Based on information associated with each of the available ad units (e.g., current game environment, game title genre, predicted player demographic information for current available ad unit, player geography, time of day, etc.), the advertisement server may then (through matching and optimization) distribute and deliver targeted advertisements to players’ gaming devices, where the advertisements may be integrated into the relevant game areas in real time.” (emphasis added)). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the ad targeting described in Hays’s paragraph 22 happens before the matching and weighting system determines which ads to serve. Pet. Reply 3–4 (referring to Hays’s paragraph 22 and arguing that the “pre-selection plainly happens serve to a particular mobile device”). In other words, ads are pre-selected before they are ultimately selected by the matching and weighting system. Petitioner’s contentions and Hays’s disclosures are consistent with the ’056 patent’s written description, which states the following: The pre-selected content may be stored on a storage medium accessible by the server. Updated content may be chosen from pre-selected content based on at least one of the factors including a type of the mobile communication device, a telecommunication service, a subscription associated with the mobile communication device, and a service provider of the telecommunication service. Ex. 1001, 11:34–40. Thus, the ’056 patent discloses that content is selected from pre-selected content. Claim 9 similarly requires identifying “what preselected in-game video game content to send,” meaning that content is selected from pre-selected content. See Tr. 31:2–5 (Patent Owner’s counsel’s argument that “there must be a pre-selection of certain content that will be available from which to select once the request is received, and then the checking step is performed in the various claims here”), 31:21–23 (Patent Owner’s counsel’s argument that “[t]here must be some pre-selection of, you know, kind of narrowed down content, if you will, but then when the request comes in, you choose among that pre-selected content for the final selection”). On this record, we find that Petitioner’s contentions and Hays’s disclosure of selecting ads to serve from a pool of ads that are selected ahead of time are consistent with the written description of the ’056 patent and show how Hays teaches the pertinent claim limitations.” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“argues that Hays “is only a ‘printed publication’ under § 311(b) as of the date it became available to the public—i.e., after the June 26, 2007, priority date of the ’056 Patent,” and, therefore, that Hays is “ineligible to be prior art in an IPR.” PO Resp. 56–58. The Federal Circuit has rejected this argument, holding that a published patent application is, by its literal terms, a “printed publication.” So, when § 311(b) permits IPR challenges based upon “prior art . . . printed publications,” it includes within its literal scope challenges based upon a published patent application. And, by virtue of § 102(e)(1), a published patent application—this specific type of “printed publication”—is deemed prior art as of its filing date. Therefore, the plain language of §§ 311(b) and 102(e)(1) permits IPR challenges based upon published patent applications, and such published patent applications can be deemed prior art in IPRs as of their filing date. Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 125 F.4th 1120, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Thus, Petitioner asserts a permissible ground of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) by arguing that claims 1–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Hays, which is a prior art printed publication.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 11,117,056 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,117,056 - PLR Worldwide Sales Limited v. Flip Phone Games, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00171 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Hays; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Zagal, argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in game design or development, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience working with computer gaming systems or software application development.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–66). Petitioner also contends that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education or vice versa.” Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–66). Patent Owner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Akl, contends that a skilled artisan “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field, along with one to two years of experience developing or programming video games or video game systems, or similar types of computer systems,” but notes that a skilled artisan “may have additional education that might substitute for some of the experience, and additional substantial experience might substitute for some of the educational background.” PO Resp. 2–3 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 28). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s proposal does not require Owner states, “[t]his difference does not materially affect the analysis presented below.” PO Resp. 3. We see very little difference between the parties’ respective proposals. We adopt Patent Owner’s more specific proposal because it is consistent with the level of skill evidenced in the ’958 patent and the applied prior art, but we agree with Patent Owner that this does not affect our analysis; we would reach the same conclusions under Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“requirements for the language “for use in a video game,” including that the updated video-game content be an interactive object that is inserted into an existing game, or at least a new ad unit not already present in the game, and that the updated content alter the function of the game. PO Resp. 15–17. Patent Owner offers no persuasive support for these restrictions on the claim language. The claim language itself suggests no such restrictions. Rather, the claim language simply recites video-game content that is for use in the video game. The claim language does not specify who or what must use the content or how it must be used. Thus, the claim language itself is broad and includes none of the restrictions Patent Owner would place on it.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Owner’s position to be that mere storage of content is not enough to show pre-selection of that content. For example, during oral argument, Patent Owner’s counsel argued as follows: I don’t think it’s just as simple as saying, well, anytime you store anything, it’s been pre-selected, because again, that kind of reads out pre-selection, as well. And the same thing with indexing. I think that’s simply too broad. There must be some pre-selection of, you know, kind of narrowed down content, if you will, but then when the request comes in, you choose among that pre-selected content for the final selection. Tr. 31:18–23; see also PO Resp. 11 (“[E]xtending the claim to content that is merely selected from storage and sent gives no meaning to pre-selected . . . .”), 12 (“[C]ontent is not shown to be pre-selected by selecting it from storage and sending.”); Tr. 31:2–5 (Patent Owner’s counsel’s argument that “there must be a pre-selection of certain content that will be available from which to select once the request is received, and then the checking step is performed in the various claims here”), 34:23–24 (Patent Owner’s counsel’s argument that “[t]here still must be a pre-selection, which we don’t think is simply, you know, the act of storing”). As explained below in Sections II.D.2.b and II.D.6, Petitioner’s contentions based on Hays show that Hays teaches pre-selected ads, as recited in claims 1 and 8, and a pre-selected message, as recited in claims 5 and 12, according to Patent Owner’s understanding of the term. Therefore, we apply Patent Owner’s interpretation in our patentability analysis, and we need not provide a full claim interpretation, nor do we need to resolve whether pre-selecting can be met by merely storing data. See Realtime” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Patent Owner argues that “Hays is only a ‘printed publication’ under § 311(b) as of the date it became available to the public—i.e., after the June 26, 2007, priority date of the ’958 Patent,” and, therefore, that Hays is “ineligible to be prior art in an IPR.” PO Resp. 48–50. The Federal Circuit has rejected this argument, holding that a published patent application is, by its literal terms, a “printed publication.” So, when § 311(b) permits IPR challenges based upon “prior art . . . printed publications,” it includes within its literal scope challenges based upon a published patent application—this specific type of “printed publication”—is deemed prior art as of its filing date. Therefore, the plain language of §§ 311(b) and 102(e)(1) permits IPR challenges based upon published patent applications, and such published patent applications can be deemed prior art in IPRs as of their filing date. Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 125 F.4th 1120, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Thus, Petitioner asserts a permissible ground of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) by arguing that claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Hays, which is a prior art printed publication.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 10,617,958 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,617,958 - PLR Worldwide Sales Limited v. Flip Phone Games, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00132 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Hays; claim 6 is also unpatentable over Hays and van Datta.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We see very little difference between the parties’ respective proposals. We adopt Patent Owner’s more specific proposal because it is consistent with the level of skill evidenced in the ’202 patent and the applied prior art, but we agree with Patent Owner that this does not affect our analysis; we would reach the same conclusions under Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The claim language itself suggests no such restrictions. Rather, the claim language simply recites video-game content that is usable in the video game. The claim language does not specify who or what must use the content or how it must be used. Thus, the claim language itself is broad and includes none of the restrictions Patent Owner would place on it. As Petitioner points out (Reply 5), the specification directly refutes Patent Owner’s position. The ’202 patent’s Figure 2A (reproduced above) is instructive. In this example, “several items 210, 220, 225, 230, and 235 are shown within scene 200,” and virtually any of these items may be changed by receiving updated content on the mobile communication device. For instance, the shirt 230 might be updated to include a logo associated with third party X (as shown). The poster 225 might advertise an upcoming movie for third party Y, and chalk board 220 may contain a handwritten advertisement for third party Z (as shown). Ex. 1001, 6:42–50. When an advertising contract changes, “the mobile communication device may thereafter download updated content reflecting a new graphic, shirt, or entirely new object, to place at 230.” Id. at 6:55–57. These are examples of updated video-game content (updated advertisements on posters, T-shirts, and chalk boards) that are usable (e.g., by the game or mobile communication device executing the game) in a video game that already exists on the mobile communication device. These are also examples of what Patent Owner argues are “skins” that correspond to existing ad units and that do not alter any function of the game. Patent Owner’s construction, then, would exclude the ’202 patent’s preferred embodiment. “Such an interpretation is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Patent Owner argues that “[e]ach of Hays and Choi is only a ‘printed publication’ under § 311(b) as of the date it became available to the public—i.e., after the June 26, 2007, priority date of the ’202 Patent.” PO Resp. 56. Patent Owner argues that a prior art reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is a printed publication under Section 311(b) only as of its publication date and not as of its filing date. Id. at 56–58. The Federal Circuit has rejected this argument, holding that a published patent application is, by its literal terms, a “printed publication.” So, when § 311(b) permits IPR challenges based upon “prior art . . . printed publications,” it includes within its literal scope challenges based upon a published patent application. And, by virtue of § 102(e)(1), a published patent application—this specific type of “printed publication”—is deemed prior art as of its filing date. Therefore, the plain language of §§ 311(b) and 102(e)(1) permits IPR challenges based upon published patent applications, and such published patent applications can be deemed prior art in IPRs as of their filing date. Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 125 F.4th 1120, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Thus, Petitioner asserts permissible grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) by arguing that claims 1–9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Hays or Hays and Choi, which are prior art printed publications.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner and Dr. Akl misunderstand Hays. In the soft drink example, “the advertisement management service system may send bots or electronic agents into the game as advertising units or real characters in the game.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 79. Thus, the service system inserts more than a skin; it inserts a bot or agent that was not part of the game before its insertion. Because Dr. Akl’s testimony (Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 63–64, 72–73) is inconsistent with Hays’s disclosure, we do not credit it. See Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp., 865 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e must disregard the testimony of an expert that is plainly inconsistent with the record . . . .”).” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,731,202 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,731,202 - Vizio, Inc. v. Polaris Powerled Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00073 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable: Zane anticipates claims 1–4, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 22; other claims are held unpatentable on the stated obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Upon consideration of the evidence and argument presented, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to categorically discount the weight of Dr. Zane’s testimony. First, that testimony concerns what is already disclosed in 3 US 7,948,468 B2 (“the Zane patent”), which issued on May 24, 2011 to Regan A. Zane and Montu Doshi and was assigned to the Regents of the University of Colorado. Ex. 2005. perspective of a POSITA.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 32. Patent Owner cites no evidence to suggest otherwise.4 PO Resp. 29–40; PO Sur-Reply 20–26. Second, the Zane patent is assigned to the University of Colorado, and Dr. Zane testifies that he does not currently receive remuneration for that patent and does not believe he ever received remuneration for that patent. Ex. 2004, 64:12–17, 69:9–22. Third, for the reasons explained below, we find Patent Owner’s reliance on Glaxo and Medtronic inapposite given the facts presented here.” slip op. at 13
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“We need not resolve this dispute and dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Strike as moot for the following reason. One of the issues disputed by the parties was whether all shift registers require a clock to shift bits. See Pet. 34 (“All shift registers must have a clock connected to them for shifting the bits.”); PO Resp. 20 (“[S]hift registers without clocks are not only possible, but a well-understood electronic circuit with a variety of uses.”). We using a clock to shift the bits corresponding to PWM signal E through a shift register because a clock would be needed to ensure signal E was periodic with period 40 as disclosed by Thomas. That is, we resolved the parties dispute without reference to the dictionary definition of “strobe” Patent Owner introduced during Dr. Zane’s deposition. Accordingly, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to strike as moot.” slip op. at 58
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the invention as someone that would have had “a bachelor’s degree in physics, electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately two years of experience in the fields of LED technology, backlights, LED devices and control thereof, or other related fields.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–35). Petitioner further contends that “advanced education in the fields of physics, electrical engineering, or a related field can compensate for lesser work experience in the relevant fields” and that the merits of the Petition “do[] not turn on this specific definition of the level of ordinary skill.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute this definition. PO Resp. 4–5. In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art to be reasonable and commensurate with the problems and solutions disclosed in the prior art and, omitting the open-ended phrase 2 Applicant Admitted Prior Art continue to do so here.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“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). Under this standard, a claim is construed “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. However, “[t]he Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends “no claim terms need to be expressly construed to resolve the invalidity issues in this Petition.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner agrees. PO Resp. 5. In our Institution Decision, we declined to construe any claim term because we found no term required express construction. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375. We maintain that finding here.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 7,843,148 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,843,148 - Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurita and Lemoff, with the Board declining to reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We accept the level of ordinary skill in the art stated by Petitioner and agreed with by Patent Owner with the exception of the open-ended language appears consistent with the ’416 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“describe elements that are not affirmatively recited in the claims, and in view of the “bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention,” we conclude that none of the unrecited limitations identified by Patent Owner are required by the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the standard for disavowal is “exacting,” and the use of “the present invention” is not necessarily sufficient to meet this standard).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“art would not have modified Kurita in view of Lemoff because Lemoff positions the signal emitters near the fiber to emulate WDM without the need for an external optical multiplexer or a similar device and discourages using optical wavelength multiplexers for short distances because the complexity of the design is often cost prohibitive (PO Resp. 47–48), Lemoff does not appear to limit the usefulness of the fiber connector to any particular optical signal transmission distance. Petitioner relies upon Lemoff for a suggestion to combine Lemoff’s fiber connector configuration teachings with Kurita’s multiplexer teachings to enable fibers to be plugged Fig. 2) (Pet 29, 31; Reply 17–18). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Lemoff’s receptacle and ferrule with discrete components in Kurita because the fiber would need to be manually fixed and aligned with or without a ferrule and, therefore, would serve no purpose (PO Resp. 48), Lemoff’s fiber connector appears to fix and align the fiber adequately for wavelength division multiplexing without manual fixation or alignment being required (Ex. 1006, 5:65–6:2, Fig. 2; Reply 18). The challenged claims do not require any greater degree of fixing and alignment than that provided by Lemoff’s fiber connector. Regarding Patent Owner argument that Lemoff’s device is not physically combinable with Kurita’s WDM multiplexer due to Lemoff’s device’s small size (PO Resp. 47–48; Reply 17–18), “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“stopped single optical fiber because fixing it in place does not passively align it with the optical components (PO Resp. at 35–37) is not persuasive because fixing Kurita’s fiber (40) in place in accord with Lemoff’s teaching regarding the ferrule (255) inserted until being stopped by the receptacle (260) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2) would align Kurita’s optical array (20), and lens (30)) (Ex. 1004 Fig. 3) passively in the same manner that Lemoff’s ferrule (255), after being inserted until stopped by the receptacle (260), passively aligns the optical fiber (250) with the optical components (optical imaging element 220 and light emitters within emission apertures 120) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2; Reply 15–16). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that the light from each of Kurita’s lasers (11) depicted in Figure 3 cannot pass through a separate focusing lens (30) pie shaped sector because the lasers (11) and collimating lenses (21) are arranged linearly rather than being arranged about a circular axis (PO Resp. at 37–42), we do not agree. Claim 1 requires “focusing means having n separate radial sectors on its surface, and each of said n collimated beams passes through a separate one of said n sectors of said focusing means” (Ex. 1001, 5:34–37), claim 2 requires “four lasers and four collimating lenses are each formed in a two-dimensional, two by two array [centered on the focal axis of lens 30], wherein said focusing means is a single focusing lens, and wherein each radial sector is a pie-shaped quadrant” (id. at 5:41–44), and claim 7 requires “focusing means having four separate quadrants on its surface, and each of said four collimated beams passes through a separate one of said quadrants of said focusing means” (id. at 6:35–38). Kurita meets those claim requirements. Kurita’s two by two array (10A) of lasers (11), collimating lens (21) array (20), and focusing lens (30) are shown in Kurita’s Figure 3 (cropped) as follows: The image is a portion of Kurita’s Figure 3 showing Kurita’s laser array, collimating lens array, and focusing lens (30). Relative to a point at the center of the laser array (10A) or the collimating lens array (20), each laser (11) and each collimating lens (21) is in a separate quadrant that can be a quadrant of a circle (pie-shape) on lens 30 (Reply 12– 13, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,198,416 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,198,416 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Liberty Peak Ventures LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00422 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–5, and 7–16 as anticipated by Foss; claims 2, 6, and 17–20 as obvious over Foss and Hirka.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–161). Patent Owner does not submit a contrary skill definition. See PO Resp. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s skill definition is not “well-grounded in the facts,” but this assertion is conclusory and unpersuasive. See id. at 11. We discuss this assertion again below in the context of Patent Owner’s merits arguments. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is generally consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’301 patent and prior art of record. We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of experience indefinitely with no upper bound. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill with the exception of the language “at least.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“possession when the same dictionary proposes other definitions, such as “[a]ssociated with.” See PO Resp. 6–7. Nor does Patent Owner point to any disclosure in the ’301 patent specification that supports its more restrictive construction. When discussing “account information” in connection with an “account,” the specification merely describes “account information for the account.” Ex. 1002, 1:54–55, 10:49–50 (emphasis added). The phrase “account information of the separate account” does not occur in the specification, and neither party addresses any relevant prosecution history. There is no basis in the intrinsic record, then, for reading a restrictive interpretation of this phrase. Patent Owner overlooks that where the specification does not use a term restrictively, “the broader dictionary definition . . . is preferable.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d, 1303, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[J]udges are free to . . . rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” (internal quotation omitted)). As noted above, the parties point to no intrinsic evidence, whether in the specification or prosecution history, that informs the meaning of the term “of.” And the definition “associated with” in Patent Owner’s proffered dictionary is a broader definition than the definition “possessing.” See Ex. 2001, 2. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “account information of the separate account” in claims 1 and 7 at least encompasses “account information associated with the separate account.”” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We disagree with Patent Owner that this limitation is not inherently disclosed by Foss based on the possibility of Foss’s system sending debit account information instead of overdraft account information. That is because “account information of the separate account” encompasses “account information associated with the separate account,” under the correct claim construction. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 387 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 17). As noted above, Mr. Zatkovich testifies that “the account information request would necessarily include account information associated with the overdraft account.” Id. ¶ 386 (emphasis changed). Foss’s linkage between debit and overdraft accounts means that Foss’s debit account information would necessarily be information associated with the overdraft account. See id. ¶ 387; Ex. 1008 ¶ 17. Thus, under the proper construction of the word “of,” Patent Owner’s assertion that Foss’s system could have sent a debit card number, rather than an overdraft account number, effectively proves Petitioner’s inherency argument. In other words, Foss’s system necessarily must have sent either debit account information or overdraft account information as part of its authorization request. Otherwise, Foss’s system would not have been able to determine which overdraft account to authorize. Foss therefore inherently teaches “sending, using the computer-based authorization system, an account information request that includes account information of the separate account.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner contends that dependent claims 2, 6, and 17–20 would have been obvious over the combination of Foss and Hirka. Pet. 68–84. Petitioner provides a detailed analysis explaining where the combination of Foss and Hirka discloses the limitations in claims 2, 6, and 17–20 and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Foss and Hirka. Patent Owner does not dispute these assertions except to raise the same argument it made for claim 1. PO Resp. 18–19. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence and find them persuasive. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, and 17–20 would have been obvious over the combination of Foss and Hirka.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,905,301 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,905,301 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Liberty Peak Ventures LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00421 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Gopinathan and Hirka; the Board did not reach anticipation over Gopinathan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based on these and other disclosures in Hirka, Mr. Zatkovich testifies, and we agree, that Hirka discloses the debit card aspect of the authentication limitation. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 170, 188–189.7 For example, Mr. Zatkovich states that Hirka “demonstrate[s] that a debit card used in the transaction . . . is associated with both a demand deposit account (e.g., a ‘cash account’) and an overdraft account.” Id. ¶ 188. Mr. Zatkovich’s opinions are well-supported by record evidence, including the citations to Hirka we discuss above. Patent Owner does not address these disclosures in Hirka and does not rebut Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony with expert testimony of its own. See PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner’s assertion that “the combination suggests only authenticating a transaction against an available credit limit” entirely overlooks Hirka’s disclosure regarding debit cards and demand deposit 6 No line numbers are provided on Hirka’s first page. 7 Mr. Zatkovich also relies on the teachings of Hirka ’404 (Ex. 1007), which was cited by the Examiner during prosecution. E.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 170, 188. Although Hirka ’404 further supports Mr. Zatkovich’s findings, we view Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony sufficiently supported by the combined teachings of Gopinathan and Hirka. accounts. See id. at 16. Patent Owner’s argument therefore fails to undermine Petitioner’s persuasive arguments and supporting evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“a POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, data science, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with payment processing systems, credit card and debit card payment transactions, and industry practices and standards for processing purchase transactions and authenticating participants. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–161). Patent Owner does not submit a contrary skill definition. See PO Resp. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is generally consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’100 patent and prior art of record. We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of experience indefinitely with no upper bound. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill with the exception of the language “at least.”” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner proposes constructions for the “authenticating” step of claim 1 as well as for the terms “demand deposit account” and “overdraft account.” PO Resp. 6–7. Petitioner does not dispute these constructions, and Patent Owner does not appear to rely on them in its arguments. See Reply; PO Resp. Accordingly, we determine that no claim terms require construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner, as supported by the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gopinathan and Hirka at least “because doing so would have protected cardholders and card issuing systems from fraud associated with debit cards with overdraft protection.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 191). In other words, in the combination, Hirka’s debit cards with overdraft protection would benefit from Gopinathan’s fraud protection disclosure. See id. And conversely, Gopinathan’s system would benefit from Hirka’s overdraft protection. See id. Patent Owner does not squarely address Petitioner’s rationales to combine. In asserting that “the teachings of Hirka add nothing to the teachings already present in Gopinathan,” Patent Owner overlooks that Hirka would provide the benefit of overdraft protection to Gopinathan’s fraud detection system. See PO Resp. 15; Reply 17 (arguing that “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Gopinathan with Hirka to protect cardholders from fraud ‘associated with debit cards’ and ‘overdraft protection’”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 191. We further agree with Petitioner that Hirka would have provided the benefit of debit cards to Gopinathan’s fraud detection system. Reply 19 (“[I]t would have been obvious (and a POSITA would have been motivated to) to modify Gopinathan with the ‘debit card’ system as taught in Hirka in order to expand the reach and applicability of the fraud detection system taught.” (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 654–662)). And vice versa, Gopinathan would have provided the benefit of fraud protection to Hirka’s debit card and overdraft accounts. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 171); Pet. 24.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,837,100 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,837,100
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.