- Savant Technologies LLC D/B/A GE Lighting / Ledvance LLC et al. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 31, 2026 · IPR2025-00260 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held all challenged original claims unpatentable as obvious and denied the contingent motion to amend substitute claims 30–49.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“7. Summary As discussed above, we find that Patent Owner has failed to show a” slip op. at 35
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Motion to Amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 for claims 30 and 32–49. We further find that Patent Owner has not met the statutory and regulatory requirements for proposed claim 31. Accordingly, we address below whether any of the proposed substitute claims have been shown to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 86
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
Patent outcomesUS 8,604,678 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,604,678 - Savant Technologies LLC D/B/A GE Lighting / Ledvance LLC et al. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 31, 2026 · IPR2024-01357 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held challenged claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–14, 16–21, 25, 26, and 29 unpatentable as obvious, and granted the motion to amend for substitute claims 30–49.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“7. Summary As discussed above, we find that Patent Owner has failed to show a” slip op. at 35
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted in part
“5. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, we determine that Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 for claims 30 and 32–49. We further find that Patent Owner has not met the statutory and regulatory requirements for proposed claim 31. Accordingly, we address below whether any of the proposed substitute claims have been shown to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 8,604,678 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,604,678 - Savant Technologies LLC D/B/A GE Lighting And Ledvance LLC / Savant Technologies LLC D/B/A GE Lighting, Elong International USA Inc., And Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co. Ltd v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 31, 2026 · IPR2024-01357 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held all challenged original claims unpatentable as obvious and granted the contingent motion to amend for substitute claims 30 and 32–49; substitute claim 31 was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“E. Credibility of Dr. Doolittle Patent Owner argues that we should give no weight to Dr. Doolittle’s testimony because, “[o]n cross examination, Prof. Doolittle repeatedly contradicted himself, dodged questions, and tried to shoehorn new and nonresponsive opinions into his answers to Patent Owner’s questions.” PO Resp. 25. Patent Owner raises two major complaints about Dr. Doolittle. First, Patent Owner argues that he took inconsistent positions by asserting in these IPR proceedings that the claims were entitled to their plain and ordinary meaning, while in the parallel district court proceeding, asserting that certain claim terms were indefinite. Id. at 26–28. Second, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Doolittle “repeatedly dodged questions and tried to shoehorn new and nonresponsive opinions into his answers to Patent Owner’s questions,” and that “[d]uring cross examination Patent Owner was forced to object to Prof. Doolittle’s nonresponsive answers no less than eighteen times.” Id. at 28. We strongly disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Doolittle’s testimony. We have reviewed the entirety of both of Dr. Doolittle’s depositions. We are impressed with his forthrightness, candor, and good humor in the face of Patent Owner’s counsel’s aggressive questioning. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, we find that his testimony was well-reasoned, forthright, honest, and entitled to significant weight. Dr. Doolittle explained the different claim construction positions We also strongly disagree that Dr. Doolittle’s answers were nonresponsive or “evasive” as Patent Owner argues. Patent Owner’s numerous attempts to “strike” portions of his testimony belie Dr. Doolittle’s efforts to honestly and in good faith respond to Patent Owner’s counsel’s questions. Ex. 2025, 22:10–23:15, 25:9–26:14, 30:14–22, 40:3-9, 58:12–59:1, 60:18–61:13, 65:1–10, 83:15–84:16, 92:15–95:20, 96:18–99:9, 102:22–106:16, 135:3–136:22. An answer is not “non-responsive” simply because it does not conform to the conclusion you want or undermines the logic underlying your questioning. Dr. Doolittle explained his answers and addressed the issues Patent Owner asked about. Accordingly, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to give Dr. Doolittle’s testimony no weight. Instead, we assess Dr. Doolittle’s testimony on a case-by-case basis as discussed below.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted ground of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“lower wavelength might offer, there were other drawbacks that a person of ordinary skill would have to balance. But “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indeed, Petitioner has shown several references—including, Basin-2005, Shimizu, and Stokes—that made this tradeoff. Moreover, “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. . . . [A]ll that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We find that the prior art of record demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have such an expectation in making the combination of Basin-2007 and Basin-2005. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there would have been motivation to combine Basin-2007 and Basin-2005 with a reasonable expectation of success. 4. Summary We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions regarding claims 1–3, 6, 9, 10, 16–21, and 25 (Pet. 19–53), and find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Basin-2007 and Basin-2005 teach the limitations of those claims, and that there would have been a motivation to combine the references in the manner suggested with a reasonable considerations does not outweigh the strong showing of obviousness. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 9, 10, 16–21, and 25 would have been obvious over Basin-2007 and Basin-2005.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“1. Nexus In order for secondary considerations to be awarded “substantial” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,604,678 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,604,678 - Savant Technologies LLC D/B/A GE Lighting / Ledvance LLC et al. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2026 · IPR2024-01357 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16–21, 25, 26, and 29 are unpatentable; substitute claims 30–49 were not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted ground of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“E. Credibility of Dr. Doolittle Patent Owner argues that we should give no weight to Dr. Doolittle’s testimony because, “[o]n cross examination, Prof. Doolittle repeatedly contradicted himself, dodged questions, and tried to shoehorn new and nonresponsive opinions into his answers to Patent Owner’s questions.” PO Resp. 25. Patent Owner raises two major complaints about Dr. Doolittle. First, Patent Owner argues that he took inconsistent positions by asserting in these IPR proceedings that the claims were entitled to their plain and ordinary meaning, while in the parallel district court proceeding, asserting that certain claim terms were indefinite. Id. at 26–28. Second, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Doolittle “repeatedly dodged questions and tried to shoehorn new and nonresponsive opinions into his answers to Patent Owner’s questions,” and that “[d]uring cross examination Patent Owner was forced to object to Prof. Doolittle’s nonresponsive answers no less than eighteen times.” Id. at 28. We strongly disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Doolittle’s testimony. We have reviewed the entirety of both of Dr. Doolittle’s depositions. We are impressed with his forthrightness, candor, and good humor in the face of Patent Owner’s counsel’s aggressive questioning. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, we find that his testimony was well-reasoned, forthright, honest, and entitled to significant weight. Dr. Doolittle explained the different claim construction positions We also strongly disagree that Dr. Doolittle’s answers were nonresponsive or “evasive” as Patent Owner argues. Patent Owner’s numerous attempts to “strike” portions of his testimony belie Dr. Doolittle’s efforts to honestly and in good faith respond to Patent Owner’s counsel’s questions. Ex. 2025, 22:10–23:15, 25:9–26:14, 30:14–22, 40:3-9, 58:12–59:1, 60:18–61:13, 65:1–10, 83:15–84:16, 92:15–95:20, 96:18–99:9, 102:22–106:16, 135:3–136:22. An answer is not “non-responsive” simply because it does not conform to the conclusion you want or undermines the logic underlying your questioning. Dr. Doolittle explained his answers and addressed the issues Patent Owner asked about. Accordingly, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to give Dr. Doolittle’s testimony no weight. Instead, we assess Dr. Doolittle’s testimony on a case-by-case basis as discussed below.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“lower wavelength might offer, there were other drawbacks that a person of ordinary skill would have to balance. But “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indeed, Petitioner has shown several references—including, Basin-2005, Shimizu, and Stokes—that made this tradeoff. Moreover, “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. . . . [A]ll that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We find that the prior art of record demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have such an expectation in making the combination of Basin-2007 and Basin-2005. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there would have been motivation to combine Basin-2007 and Basin-2005 with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsDecided for petitioner
“7. Summary As discussed above, we find that Patent Owner has failed to show a” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 8,604,678 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,604,678 - Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Ziklag IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 26, 2026 · IPR2026-00047 · APJ Hung H Bui · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, 9–14, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Yurt and Logan; the Board denied Petitioner’s motion to strike.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the record before us, we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s “proposed level of skill” is appropriate in this proceeding for reasons discussed below.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“McCulloh’s qualifications are grounded upon Patent Owner’s “proposed level of skill” (which we rejected) that is “higher than Petitioner’s proposed level” (which we adopted for this proceeding) and focus on their level of skill in the late 1990s timeframe (time of the invention), but there is no time requirement on when an expert acquired the requisite level of skill in the art. Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., 116 F. 4th 1335, 1340–1341 (declining to add a timing requirement to the minimum qualifications necessary to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art). “An expert need not have acquired that skill level prior to the time of the invention to be able to testify from the vantage point of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Rather, an expert can acquire the necessary skill level later and develop an understanding of what a person of ordinary skill knew at the time of the invention. In practice, the fact that the expert was not a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention may well be used during cross examination to undermine the credibility of the expert.” Id. Under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill (which we adopted), Dr. McCulloh is indeed qualified to testify in this proceeding because he has a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Carnegie Mellon University and extensive experience, including “hands-on deployment and academic research in distributed systems operating under real-world constraints” (Ex. 2009, Ex. 2010). See Ex. 2010 (CV) (BSIE, MS Comp. Sci, PhD Comp. Sci, Lieutenant 1994-1999, 10th Mountain Division (“led the army’s first tactical deployment of a distributed computing system”)); Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 6–10. Although Dr. McCulloh’s declaration does not include any searching or analysis of patent literature including Yurt or Logan as part of his analysis of the “background” state of the art, as correctly recognized by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 1017, 74:18–75:14; Ex. 2009 ¶ 3)), we are persuaded that Dr. McCulloh is qualified to address Dr. Lippman’s portrayal of the architecture disclosed in the ’128 patent, as advanced by Patent Owner. Ex. 2009, ¶¶ 3, 5–34; Ex. 2010. Dr. McCulloh does not provide testimony to refute Petitioner’s obviousness analysis based on Yurt and Logan. See Ex. 2009. Mr. Johnson is only offered to refute Petitioner’s obviousness analysis based on Yurt and Logan. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 3, 18, 29. Under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill (which we adopted), Mr. Johnson, who is a co-inventor of the ’128 patent, is qualified to testify in this proceeding, especially, when his declaration states that (1) he is a POSITA “with more than 30 years of experience building technology-driven media and contentdistribution systems” and (2) he “was actively involved in the development and deployment of digital music and video distribution technologies” since the mid-1990’s, including “real-time and near-real-time electronic delivery of media content.” Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 9–10, 14, 16. Certainly, “[t]he inventor himself may qualify as an expert and testify what his claims would mean in the relevant art.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction needed
“Plain Meaning of “Substantially Real Time” Instead, the plain meaning of “substantially real time” is readily apparent and understood by a person of skill (POSITA) in the art in the context of data distribution or transmission of the ’128 patent as referring to an acceptable time delay (i.e., “a fraction of real time”) between distribution center 18 and user device 12, via network 14, shown in Figures 1–2 of the ’128 patent and, as such, is consistent with the ‘128 patent’s specification and Dr. Lippman’s Declaration (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 79, 126). Because the plain meaning of “substantially real time” as understood by a POSITA is readily apparent, there is no reason for the Board to consider Patent Owner’s clarification of “substantially real time” based solely on extrinsic evidence, i.e., counsel argument, Mr. Johnson’s declaration (Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 27, 29–30, 33, 39; Ex. 1018, 38:13–39:20) and Dr. McCulloh’s declaration (Ex. 2009, ¶ 19). For example, Patent Owner, relying upon Mr. Johnson’s testimony, clarifies the term “substantially real time” requires either (1) “playback while transmission is ongoing” (PO Resp. 30), or (2) “[a] coordinated system behavior in response to a user’s request” “in which a user request triggers coordinated operations, including locating content across distributed systems, routing that content, and initiating playback while transmission is ongoing” (PO Sur-Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:67–3:2, 6:23–35)). However, Patent Owner’s shifting position regarding “substantially real time” is not commensurate with the plain reading of the term. Based on the plain meaning of “substantially real time,” we are persuaded by Petitioner that Yurt explicitly discloses transmitting data at least in “real time,” preferably “less than real time” or “a fraction of real time” for playback. Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex.1005, code (57), 1:66–2:4, 4:68– 5:3 (teaching distributing “digital audio” in “less than real time” and in “a fraction of real time,” where the receiving system may “decompress in real time the requested material as it is distributed by transmission system 100”)).” slip op. at 36
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“teaches or renders obvious all limitations of claim 1, Petitioner also provides sufficient motivation or reasoning with a rational underpinning to combine Yurt and Logan. Specifically, Petitioner, relying on Dr. Lippman’s declaration (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 62–73), asserts “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Yurt with Logan for several reasons, discussed further below. Combining Logan’s usage log teachings with Yurt’s improved audio file accessibility (e.g., via popularity) to track additional user request information would have been obvious, beneficial, and predictable.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 62–72). According to Petitioner, because “Logan teaches implementation details for tracking user/usage data for billing purposes and adapting preferences ‘based on actual usage,’” “[a] POSITA would have thus been motivated to combine Yurt’s teachings (e.g., tracking information about requested items like item popularity) with Logan’s teachings (e.g., storing user data and usage information in response to user requests).” Id. at 19–20. “This would have been merely the use of a known technique (Logan’s tracking of user and usage data in response to user requests) to improve a similar method in the same way (Yurt’s tracking of information about user-requested items).” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 67– 68). According to Petitioner, [T]he combination is straightforward: use Logan’s known technique for recording user data with Yurt’s existing item database teachings. See Ex. 1005, 12:28–57, 10:66–11:4; Ex. 1006, 5:33–42, 6:27–35, 8:49–58; Pet. 19–23. Since Yurt already teaches using its item database to track item popularity and request information, no modification to Yurt’s architecture is necessary. Logan merely confirms when and how to store the user information. Pet. 19–21. A POSITA would have found the combination obvious for all the reasons Dr. Lippman provided. See, e.g., Ex.1003, ¶¶ 71–72.” slip op. at 58
Patent outcomesUS 6,182,128 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,182,128 - Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Ziklag IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 26, 2026 · IPR2025-00700 · APJ Hung H Bui · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, 9–14, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Yurt and Logan; Petitioner’s motion to strike is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the record before us, we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s “proposed level of skill” is appropriate in this proceeding for reasons discussed below.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill (which we adopted), Dr. McCulloh is indeed qualified to testify in this proceeding because he has a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Carnegie Mellon University and extensive experience, including “hands-on deployment and academic research in distributed systems operating under real-world constraints” (Ex. 2009, Ex. 2010). See Ex. 2010 (CV) (BSIE, MS Comp. Sci, PhD Comp. Sci, Lieutenant 1994-1999, 10th Mountain Division (“led the army’s first tactical deployment of a distributed computing system”)); Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 6–10. Although Dr. McCulloh’s declaration does not include any searching or analysis of patent literature including Yurt or Logan as part of his analysis of the “background” state of the art, as correctly recognized by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 1017, 74:18–75:14; Ex. 2009 ¶ 3)), we are persuaded that Dr. McCulloh is qualified to address Dr. Lippman’s portrayal of the architecture disclosed in the ’128 patent, as advanced by Patent Owner. Ex. 2009, ¶¶ 3, 5–34; Ex. 2010. Dr. McCulloh does not provide testimony to refute Petitioner’s obviousness analysis based on Yurt and Logan. See Ex. 2009. Mr. Johnson is only offered to refute Petitioner’s obviousness analysis based on Yurt and Logan. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 3, 18, 29. Under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill (which we adopted), Mr. Johnson, who is a co-inventor of the ’128 patent, is qualified to testify in this proceeding, especially, when his declaration states that (1) he is a POSITA “with more than 30 years of experience building technology-driven media and contentdistribution systems” and (2) he “was actively involved in the development and deployment of digital music and video distribution technologies” since the mid-1990’s, including “real-time and near-real-time electronic delivery of media content.” Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 9–10, 14, 16. Certainly, “[t]he inventor himself may qualify as an expert and testify what his claims would mean in the relevant art.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The fact that Johnson is a co-inventor is not in and of itself sufficient to discredit his testimony. “That an expert may have a bias or self-interest towards a party on whose behalf he or she is offering testimony, without more, generally does not require disqualifying the expert so long as the expert appears to be providing an objective analysis. Bias goes to the weight of the testimony, not necessarily its admissibility.” Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F. 3d 1286, 1321–22 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nevertheless, the Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he Board was well within its discretion to give more credibility to [one expert over another] unless no” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Based on the record before us, we determine that neither Patent Owner’s proposed clarification nor an express construction of “substantially real time” is necessary for our proceeding. Plain Meaning of “Substantially Real Time” Instead, the plain meaning of “substantially real time” is readily apparent and understood by a person of skill (POSITA) in the art in the context of data distribution or transmission of the ’128 patent as referring to an acceptable time delay (i.e., “a fraction of real time”) between distribution center 18 and user device 12, via network 14, shown in Figures 1–2 of the ’128 patent and, as such, is consistent with the ‘128 patent’s specification and Dr. Lippman’s Declaration (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 79, 126). Because the plain meaning of “substantially real time” as understood by a POSITA is readily apparent, there is no reason for the Board to consider Patent Owner’s clarification of “substantially real time” based solely on extrinsic evidence, i.e., counsel argument, Mr. Johnson’s declaration (Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 27, 29–30, 33, 39; Ex. 1018, 38:13–39:20) and Dr. McCulloh’s declaration (Ex. 2009, ¶ 19). For example, Patent Owner, relying upon Mr. Johnson’s testimony, clarifies the term “substantially real time” requires either (1) “playback while transmission is ongoing” (PO Resp. 30), or (2) “[a] coordinated system behavior in response to a user’s request” “in which a user request triggers coordinated operations, including locating content across distributed systems, routing that content, and initiating playback while transmission is ongoing” (PO Sur-Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:67–3:2, 6:23–35)). However, Patent Owner’s shifting position regarding “substantially real time” is not commensurate with the plain reading of the term.” slip op. at 36
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Conclusion as to Claim 1 Petitioner has shown that (1) Yurt and Logan teach or suggest all the limitation of claim 1 and (2) reasons sufficiently existed with a rational underpinning to support the combination of Yurt and Logan.” slip op. at 63
Patent outcomesUS 6,182,128 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,182,128 - Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01133 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 9, and 12–13 as anticipated by Weaver, and claims 6–8 and 10–11 as obvious over the stated combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). In general, we agree with the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. In particular, Patent Owner proposes “at least a Bachelors’ degree in a field of engineering or physics,” which includes “electrical engineering or a comparable field of study” as Petitioner proposes. Pet. 4 (emphasis added); PO Resp. 10. We agree with Petitioner that by defining the engineering field as “electrical” or “comparable,” we can exclude engineering fields “having nothing to do with displays, such as biomedical, civil, chemical or environmental engineering.” Pet. Reply 1. Petitioner also proposes approximately “one or more years of professional experience” which includes Patent Owner’s “at least two years of professional experience.” Pet. 4; PO Resp. 10. Furthermore, both parties agree that “[a]dditional graduate education could [reduce . . . the time requirement] for professional experience.” Id. Thus, we adopt both parties’ proposed POSITA of having a Bachelors’ degree in electrical engineering or a comparable field of study, plus at least two years of professional experience, wherein additional graduate education could reduce the time requirement for professional experience. Id. Such proposal comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“The plain language in claim 1 of “auxiliary electrode” does not preclude that the “electrode” may be a power line, bus line, or resistor. Ex. 1001, 8:47–52. Nothing in the Specification clearly precludes “auxiliary electrode” from being a “bus line” or “power line,” as Patent Owner proposes. PO Resp. 25–27. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification discloses that “the power line ‘PL’ is shown in Figure 1, but the power line PL is not an electrode that is shown in Figure 2.” Id. at 26–27. Here, Patent Owner points to no portions in the Specification that provide the requisite “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” to warrant interpreting the claim language at issue as supporting Patent Owner’s contention that an auxiliary electrode cannot be a power line, bus line, or resistor. Id.; In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1984). That is, although Patent Owner points to Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification for support of its contention, Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification merely show various examples of power line and an auxiliary electrode. PO Resp. 26–27. Thus, although the referenced portions of the Specification discuss various examples wherein an auxiliary electrode may be implemented, nothing in these referenced portions of the Specification clearly precludes the “auxiliary electrode” from being a power line or any electrode that is “the road to get to an end point,” as Patent Owner contends. Id. Patent Owner points to no special definition, implicit or explicit, for “auxiliary electrode” that is set forth in the Specification which supports Patent Owner’s construction with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. In particular, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that “‘bus line 430’ is not an ‘auxiliary electrode’” (PO Resp. 28–33), because Patent Owner is relying on a claim construction of “auxiliary electrode” as precluding “essential” elements and requiring “more than the end structure of a conductor” (id.), that is not adopted by our construction discussed above. Here, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Weaver’s bus line 430 for providing the claimed “electrode,” that is “supplemental to other electrodes in the structure.” Pet. 18; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 26, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 92. We find availing Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that a POSITA would have understood that “anode 406 and bus line 430 are connected in parallel,” which means that “bus line 430 is a supplemental electrode that reduces the total resistance of the pixel structure.” Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94. Thus, we find availing Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that Weaver’s bus line 430 is an electrode supplemental to other electrodes in the structure that is electrically insulated from transistor 410 by passivation layer 409, wherein OLED 400, which includes cathode 422, organic layer 424, and anode 406, is disposed above bus line 430, and wherein anode 406 of OLED 400 is electrically connected to bus line 430 by via 428. Pet. 16–19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 89–94. That is, we find availing Petitioner’s contention that, like the ’509 patent’s auxiliary electrode 120, bus line 430 is electrically insulated from transistor 410, wherein OLED 400 is disposed above bus line 430 and anode 406 electrically connected with bus line 430. Compare Pet. 2–3 (annotated” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that the proposed modifications to Weaver would involve changing the process. PO Resp. 33– 34. We agree with Petitioner, whose contentions are supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that “to provide additional components from the same layer is a layout change that a POSITA would have been able to perform without changing the process.” Pet. Reply 17–18 (citing Ex 1003 ¶ 157; Ex. 1020 ¶ 45). Further, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that POSITA would not have combined Weaver with Lee ’053, Song, Lee ’149, or Bae without the use of hindsight (PO Resp. 33–45), as Petitioner points out, Lee ’149, for example, “explicitly teaches that ‘the electrode pattern 45 serves to lower the resistance of the first electrode 41.” Pet. Reply 58 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 38). Similarly, Bae “explicitly teaches that the “auxiliary electrodes 139 contact the first electrode 132 to commonly apply a voltage to the sub-pixels” and “reduces the resistance of the first electrode.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 37, 59). As such, Petitioner’s proposed combinations are supported by at least by Lee ’149’s and Bae’s teachings of applying a second electrode to lower the resistance and voltage drop between anode 406 and the VDD line of Weaver. See, e.g., Ex. 1011 ¶ 38; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 37, 59. We are persuaded by Dr. Baker’s testimony that a POSITA would have understood that higher resistance between the power or ground line to the light emitting device would consume more power and require higher operating voltages, and thus, would have been motivated to implement the solutions of Lee ’053, Song, Lee ’149, or Bae to lower the resistance between anode 406 and voltage source VDD in Weaver. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145, 158, 184, 203. We agree with Petitioner, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success the combining the references as suggested, wherein such modification “involves modifications of only routine skill in the art,” which “involve known method,” and “would have yielded predictable results. Pet. 42, 48–49, 59, 67–68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145, 158, 184, 203. That is, we determine that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning explaining why it would have been obvious to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Based on the complete record presented, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6–8 would have been obvious over the combination of Weaver and Lee ’053 or alternatively over the combination of Weaver and Song, and that claims 10 and 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Weaver and Lee ’149 or alternatively over the combination of Weaver and Bae.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 9,263,509 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,263,509 - Bizlink Technology, Inc. v. Anderson Power Products, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00687 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 7–12 are unpatentable; claim 4 is not shown unpatentable because Winkler does not establish that its insulating barriers press against each other when partially disconnected.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s first argument that a level of ordinary skill in the art that encompasses an individual having experience with electrical circuits but not electrical connectors is not consistent with the technology and descriptions in the ’017 patent. See PO Resp. 7. The field of the invention of the ’017 patent is “electrical connectors, and more particularly, . . . an electrical connector that suppresses arcing if connected or disconnected while current is flowing.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–9. Consistent therewith, the challenged claims are directed to “[a]n electrical connector pair” and recite structural features of the electrical connector pair. Id. at 4:20–56, 5:1–20.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We find that the intrinsic evidence supports maintaining our construction in the Institution Decision that “insulating” means “electrically insulating.” See Dec. 11–12. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the insulating barriers would be unable to be configured to “block[] substantially all through-air arcing paths between the first and second electrical contacts,” as claimed, unless they were electrically insulating. See Ex. 1001, 4:36–44. Moreover, as Patent Owner avers, our interpretation of “insulating” as it applies to the first and second insulating barriers should be the same as for the first and second housings. See Digital Biometrics, 149 F.3d at 1345 (“whatever interpretation we assign [to a word used in a claim] should encompass both uses because the same word appearing in the same claim should be interpreted consistently” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Ex. 2001 ¶ 102. Accordingly, we find Dr. Eldering’s testimony persuasive as to this issue and determine that the diagram shows what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably inferred Winkler to disclose when the connectors are partially disconnected. Compare Ex. 1004, Fig. 2, with Pet. 33; see also Ex. 1004, 3:14–27 (discussing the process by which the connectors are engaged with each other).” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Id. at 3:27–37 (emphasis added). These wall portions 58 are located between the distal ends of the terminals and where Petitioner proposes to add a printed circuit board or wiring board to Winkler. See id. at Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46 (diagrams showing Winkler as modified to have a printed circuit board or wiring board). As such, movement of Winkler’s terminals appears to be mostly limited to within their respective receiving pockets. Given the above teachings, we fail to see how Petitioner’s proposed modification would have meaningfully interfered with the degree of freedom of movement required by Winkler’s terminals. Notably, Mr. Locati’s testimony regarding this issue is conclusory. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 120. Because movement of Winkler’s terminals occurs primarily in the receiving pockets, we also do not discern how the solder joint of Petitioner’s proposed modification would experience undue stress or risk breaking due to that movement. See Ex. 1004, 1:47–55, 3:14–37, Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46. This is particularly true in view of Winkler’s teaching that each cylindrical end portion may be soldered to a cable. See id. at 2:6–10; see also Pet. 43 (arguing that Winkler teaches soldering to a cable but not specifically to a printed circuit or wiring board). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Winkler and Handbook.” slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 8,808,017 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,808,017 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00652 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’403 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 73); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses element [1.2] because the evidence cited does not disclose a “first computer system being configured to provide remote control of the first pump or first valve” (i.e., a fluid-handling device). Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but Petitioner has not identified any disclosure of the capability to remotely control fluid-handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, Kahn’s disclosures that Petitioner relies on for allegedly teaching remote control are deficient. We discuss each. First, Petitioner points to the following, “[f]or instance, as illustrated in FIG. 1C, a fluid control device such as a valve 15A is located on the input side of a sen[s]or unit 110.” Ex. 1005, 8:19–21, cited in Pet. 13. This portion of Kahn, however, does not disclose remote control. Second, Petitioner cites to the following: Finally, or in addition to, the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:62–67). We agree with Patent Owner that this portion of Kahn teaches on-site alerts and local control of the fluid-handling device. See Prelim. Resp. 7. This portion of Kahn does not disclose remote control.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,294,403 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00651 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9–20 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“target value” is part of a command that is sent from a computing device to a server and then to a controller. The controller then receives a measurement of the fluid by a sensor and determines whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” If the measurement does not satisfy the “target value,” further operations are undertaken. The recited operation sequence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” is not as Dr. Wooley opines because the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time is represented by the measurement taken by the sensor, 11 Some claim language less relevant to construing “target value” was omitted for ease of reference. which the controller then uses to determine whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” Additionally, claim 1 recites that the “target value” is sent as part of a command to the controller. The “target value” is not sent to the controller from the sensor, as might be expected if the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” were as Dr. Wooley opines. Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s construction would also result in “target value” meaning effectively the same thing as the measurement of the fluid by the sensor, a concept that is separately recited in claim 1 and to which the “target value” is compared. The Specification of the ’680 patent does not support Petitioner’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value.” Although the Specification does not recite “target value,” it recites “target state,” and describes “target state” sufficiently to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “target” as used in “target value” and “target state.” In particular, the ’680 patent explains that “[i]n some embodiments, the process 104 includes receiving, via a network interface, from a remote user device, (e.g., via a command-center server) a command to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state.” Ex. 1001, 11:48–51. This portion reflects that the command is seeking to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state. In other words, the “target value” or “target state” is not generally “the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time”; rather, it is a value or state that the fluid-handling device is desired to be in, as Patent Owner and Dr. Durham explain. Additionally, just as claim 1 recites a directional component for the “target value” to be sent to the controller in a command, so too does the Specification describe a “target state” as being sent in a command from a remote user device. Thus, the Specification clearly supports the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Patent Owner and Dr. Durham and not the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Wooley. slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“time-stamped process data, report exception therein to the remote host, and extract and transmit time-stamped process data to the remote host.” Ex. 1005, Abst. (emphases added). Almadi explains that its remote field systems must include a plurality of controller units “to issue commands to, and gather and process data from a plurality of field devices, including remote systems and instruments, . . . [and] a database server for the storage of process data retrieved from the remote subsystems and instruments.” Id. at 2:22–30 (emphases added). Based on these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established that Almadi discloses element [1.4]. Specifically, the teachings from Almadi identified by Petitioner refer to process data, which is data retrieved from the remote subsystems/field devices. Thus, we understand that Almadi’s teaching—of using an Ethernet switch to transmit “process data”—describes transmitting data from the remote subsystems/field devices. See Ex. 1005, 3:13–17, cited in Pet. 15. But claim 1 and particularly element [1.4], recites “sending, with the server, the target value to the network address [which identifies a controller of the fluid-handling device13] via the network,” which is different than sending process data from the field devices to the remote host or database server for storage.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,175,680
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.