- Google LLC / Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Ericsson ABAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00003 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 10, 12, 14, and 16–20 are unpatentable under § 103; the Board denied Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“[W]ould have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and 2–3 years of practical engineering experience relating to information security systems that employ cryptographic keys to encrypt/decrypt digital data. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s expert regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. RMTA 19. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Villasenor, notes that “obviousness must be viewed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the field of information security using cryptographic keys for encryption and decryption of digital data, and my opinions are rendered on the basis of the definition of the ordinary artisan set forth in the Petition in view of that further clarification.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 19. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’178 patent specification. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyOther
“In reply, Patent Owner substantially repeats its arguments against Petitioner’s reliance on Peterka for the claim 1 content encryption key identifiers requirements. Reply RMTA 8–9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 121; Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 89, 93–95); see RMTA 14–15. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed in Section III.D.2.e)(2) above.” slip op. at 65
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that there was no motivation to combine Peterka with Suzuki because Petitioner has argued that “Peterka can already identify content keys by using the allegedly unique sequence numbers or time stamps assigned to each message carrying a single content key.” PO Resp. 41–42 (citing Pet. 25). Patent Owner also challenges motivation to combine Suzuki because it “is not directed to a pay-by-time, pay-per-view, or subscription distribution model, in which a content key grants access to content that different clients must individually decide to purchase in discrete units or increments.” Id. at 36–37. Petitioner responds that, because Peterka disclosed alternative embodiments that did not use sequence numbers or time stamps to identify EMM/ECM messages, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated specifically assign identifications to individual keys as taught in Suzuki. Reply 22 (citing Pet. 26). Petitioner also argues that whether Suzuki was directed to unpurchased content was irrelevant, because Suzuki is cited to show multiple key responses were conventional. Id. at 19–20. Patent Owner does not otherwise specifically address the issue of motivation to combine Peterka, Suzuki, and Bocharov. See generally PO Resp. Nonetheless the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. We find, based on the record, that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Peterka, Suzuki, and Bocharov as proffered by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 45
- ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“We agree with Petitioner that the substitute claims are broadening. Because the amended wording only requires the key request to be made “in response to detecting” the boundary, rather than “ahead of” the boundary, the request can occur before or after the boundary. This is not a fanciful or unlikely possibility — such delayed requests are specifically contemplated by the ’178 patent: [I]f the packager 104 is unable to obtain a new content encryption key from the WFM 102 prior to the expiration of the current content encryption key, the packager 104 will continue to use the current content encryption key until such time as it is able to obtain a new key from the WFM 102. Ex. 1001, 6:32–37. It should be noted that the fixed period duration for key rotation may be viewed as a "target" period, as the packager 104 may not expire a key on the exact boundary. Ex. 1001, 8:9–11. The key expiration time from the WFM 102 may be viewed as a "suggested" expiration time, as the packager 104 may not be able to expire the key at the exact specified time.” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 9,313,178 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,313,178 - Google LLC / Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Ericsson ABAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00004 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9, 11–17, and 19 are unpatentable under §103; the revised motion to amend proposing substitute claims 21–36 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Board first must determine whether the 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.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). Accordingly, a patent owner must provide a claim listing reproducing each proposed substitute claim, and must make an initial showing to demonstrate the following: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure (and any earlier filed disclosure for which the benefit of the earlier filing date is sought); (3) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; and (4) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” slip op. at 60
- Expert testimonyOther
“Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions regarding the” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelOther
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 11,122,313 unpatentableNonecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,122,313 - 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 - Intel Corporation / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00301 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review for claims 1–11, 16, and 21 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial, and denied joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“2026. This date is nearly five months prior to the date on which the final written decision would be due if trial were instituted in this proceeding. And, even if we assume Petitioner’s alleged February–March 2026 trial date, this date too is several months prior to the projected final written decision deadline. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding would issue before trial in the district court, unless the trial was delayed or rescheduled for a later time. Thus, we find this factor weighs in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. See ARM Ltd. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, IPR2025-00207, Paper 10 at 2 (May 16, 2025) (Before the Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office) (exercising discretion to deny institution with the same relative timing between district court trial and final written decision deadline).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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). Institution of inter partes review, however, is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons discussed below, we exercise discretion pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) not to institute inter partes review. Additionally, for the same reasons and because institution was denied in IPR2024-01248, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (“[T]he Director . . . may join as a party . . . any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director . . . determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.”).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,814,071 - Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co. Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V.InstitutedPTAB · Apr 8, 2025 · IPR2024-01439 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–11 and 13–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claim 1 over Uchida and Grimshaw.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “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.” After considering the Petition and the evidence of record, and in the absence of any argument or evidence to the contrary, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’951 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–11 and 13–21 of the ’951 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We do not agree that the references relied upon in the Petition are cumulative of the Banerjee and Epstein references previously considered by the Office. For example, during reexamination Patent Owner represented to the Office that neither Banerjee nor Epstein discloses or suggests “an actuator on the peripheral device, wherein said actuator is arranged in a way to enable the user to carry out a user action by actuating the actuator to trigger the processing device to transfer said user selected arbitrary media content to said wireless transmitter through said port to transmit said user selected arbitrary media content to the display node via the communications network” . . . . [T]he skilled person would have appreciated that Banerjee is directed to the plug-and-play device having code that is automatically executed when the plug-and-play device is connected to the remote computer and the remote computer sending a request to share the screen by the master computer, whereas Epstein is directed to a puck that sends an intention to the switching device or wirelessly through the laptop. Ex. 2001, 124–125 (emphasis added). Here, however, Petitioner relies primarily on the structures and operations disclosed by Ono, Ichieda, and Uchida to demonstrate it would have been known to include an actuator on a wireless peripheral device to trigger the transfer of a user selected arbitrary media content. See Pet. 31–33, 57–59, 77. Importantly, unlike Epstein or Banerjee, each of those references discloses display systems that include wireless peripheral devices that have actuators that are at least related to facilitating the transfer of image data from a personal computer to a projector for display. See id. As such, we find that Ono, Ichieda, and Uchida present information that is neither substantively similar nor cumulative of that disclosed or suggested by Banerjee and Epstein. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with . . . five years of work experience in computer science and embedded systems, or Master’s Degree in Computer Science with . . . five years of work experience in electrical and computer engineering and embedded systems. Additional educational experience could substitute for some of the work experience. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, as it is consistent with the ’951 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenInstituted
“Patent Owner’s assertion fails to undermine Petitioner’s contention because it does not actually address Petitioner’s point, which is that a skilled artisan would recognize, when a user slides switch 140 back to the ‘OFF’ position to allow image transfer to resume, that action would trigger image data transmission of user selected arbitrary media content from wireless through the wireless communications network for display. Instead, Patent Owner’s argument only addresses when a user slides switch 140 to the “ON” position to stop image transmission. On this record, we determine that Petitioner’s evidence and analysis shows sufficiently that Uchida and Grimshaw disclose this last claim element of claim 1. 4. Conclusion After considering Petitioner’s evidence and argument, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claim 1 based on the combination of Uchida and Grimshaw (Ground 2). We also note that both parties rely on substantially the same evidence and arguments to address independent claims 9, 16, and 21. See Pet. 49–59 (claim 9), 64–66 (claim 16), 67 (claim 21); Prelim. Resp. 34–47 (claims 9, 16, 21). Therefore, our determination for claim 1 applies equally to claims 9, 16, and 21.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,422,951 - Apple Inc. v. Varia Holdings LLCInstitutedPTAB · Mar 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01363 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–32 and all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We do not agree that Zalewski is substantively identical to Willgert. As discussed below in Section IV.D.4.c), Zalewski disclosed an RFID transponder in a removable cover for a phone that was completely separate from the voice call components of the telephone itself. Ex. 2001, 7:63–8:3. Based on this, Applicant successfully distinguished Zalewski because the RFID transponder functionality, being contained in a removable cover, was completely independent of the phone device, and thus the claim requirement of a “communication device determining the mobile communication device is in an operational space” was not met. Ex. 1002, 94–95. On this basis, Applicant also argued that claim requirements of switching between a voice call state and an RFID transponder state were not met. Ex. 1008, 18, 91, 134–135, 155; Ex. 1002, 530. In contrast, Willgert discloses an RFID transponder that is integrated with a mobile telephone, and so it cannot be distinguished on the basis that was used for Zalewski. Ex. 1004 ¶ 32. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information 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.” For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to challenged claims 1–32 and the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“[W]ould have been someone knowledgeable in mobile communication devices and components used therein, cellular radio systems, and wireless communications, such as those used for voice calling and radio frequency identification (RFID). That person would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, with a background in radio frequency communications as well as approximately two years of experience working with or researching radio frequency communication systems. Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner does not offer a specific definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, generally, Prelim. Resp. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’947 patent specification. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“not agree, based on the current record, that the claims should be construed to encompass a device that has independent RFID transponder components that are separate from and independent of the components that provide voice call capability. During prosecution of related applications, in distinguishing Zalewski, Applicant disavowed such a broad interpretation. For example, Applicant asserted: The term “transceiver” . . . is well understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably interpret a "transceiver" so broadly as to incorporate an entire mobile device's circuitry, and in particular to be read on by two separate transmitters . . . . Ex. 1008, 40. Also: [A] person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood “a transceiver of a mobile communication device” to be a transmitter and receiver combined in a single package/housing/unit and sharing at least some common circuitry for both transmission and reception located within a mobile communication device. . . . . A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Applicants’ disclosure as describing a single transceiver that can be switched from a first state in which it transmits voice call signals to a second state in which it transmits RFID signals. Id. at 92, 94. However, Petitioner also argues, and provides expert testimony in support, that it would have been obvious to integrate Willgert’s communications unit with the voice call capability of a mobile telephone. Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–130). At this stage of the proceeding, we find support for this position, including the fact that Willgert specifically teaches that the communications unit can be integrated into a mobile telephone. Ex. 1004 ¶ 32. Patent Owner challenges this argument based on the statement in Willgert that the communications unit can be “constructed so that the transponder will also function when the mobile telephone is switched-off.” Prelim. Resp. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 31). However, Willgert provides this as one option, and we do not find that this statement teaches away from a fully integrated approach alternative.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,405,947 - Apple Inc. v. Varia Holdings LLCInstitutedPTAB · Mar 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01364 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–39 on all grounds in the Petition, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board may exercise discretion to deny a petition that presents the same or substantially the same art or arguments as were previously presented to the Office. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (providing that the Board institutes on behalf of the Director). The Board has outlined factors it considers in determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8, 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton Dickinson”). The Becton Dickinson factors apply when a petition relies on art or arguments previously presented to the Office during any proceeding pertaining to the challenged patent, including reexamination, reissue, and AIA post-grant proceedings. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8–10 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). Advanced Bionics explains how the Becton Dickinson factors fit into a two-part framework that examines: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information 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.” For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to challenged claims 1–19 and the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundOther
“Petitioner argues that this combination would have been motivated by the fact that the Willgert teaches that integrating its communications unit into a mobile telephone designed for Bluetooth communication was a “highly user-friendly application,” and that it was well known practice to use a Bluetooth headset wirelessly communicating with the phone to enable hands-free phone calls, as specifically taught by Mooney. Pet. 12–14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 8, 30–32; Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 7, 39, 46–48; Ex. 1021; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–76). Petitioner further argues that Bluetooth headsets were widely available, that incorporating the headset involved known methods yielding predictable results, and that one of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected to succeed in combining the teachings of Willgert and Mooney. Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 8, 10; Ex. 1005, ¶ 8; Ex. 1017, 1, 3; Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–79). Patent Owner does not address the issue of motivation to combine Willgert and Mooney. See generally Prelim. Resp. We find, based on the current record, that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Willgert and Mooney.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAOther
“Willgert/Mooney combination does not teach or suggest the voice call signal requirements of the claims. As stated in the ’984 patent, the voice call signals relate to “the primary function of [the mobile communications device], i.e. to facilitate a user in communicating with another user of another communication device.” Ex. 1001, 3:47–49. The proffered combination of wirelessly connecting a Bluetooth headset to the Bluetooth receiver/transmitter of Willgert’s communications unit includes the fact that the Willgert communications unit is integrated into a mobile telephone. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 30, 32. Thus, when the telephone is being used for its “primary purpose” of communicating with another user, the same voice call signal involved in that communication is also being transmitted from the telephone to the Bluetooth headset. We see no reason why the claimed “voice call signals” must be construed to exclude such signals. Patent Owner declined to address claim construction in its Preliminary Response, but is free to explore this issue post-institution. We also disagree, based on the current record, with Patent Owner’s assertion that Willgert’s RFID transponder 2 does not transmit “RFID transponder data” or “RFID transponder signals.” The very term itself — RFID transponder — as well as the explicit disclosures in Willgert, establish that the RFID transponder transmits RFID signals and data. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 14–19. Although, as Patent Owner points out, the ’984 patent discloses embodiments that “emulate” an RFID transponder, there is no reason to confine the scope of the claims to the disclosed embodiments and there is nothing in the ’984 specification or claims that disavows including Willgert’s RFID transponder within the scope of the claims. Also, Patent Owner’s reliance on the prosecution history regarding the Zalewski patent is misplaced. As Patent Owner has explained, Zalewski disclosed “‘an RFID transponder 110’ embedded in a removable cover for a phone or other device ‘such as an MP3 player.’” Prelim. Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2001, 7:63–8:3). Based on this, Applicant successfully distinguished Zalewski because the RFID transponder functionality, being contained in a removable cover, was completely independent of the phone device, and thus the claim requirements of a transceiver or transmitter switching between a voice call state and an RFID transponder state were not met. Ex. 1002, 18, 91, 134–135, 155; Ex. 1009, 530. Zalewski was not distinguished based on whether or not the RFID transponder was emulated. Again, Patent Owner is free to explore the scope of the claim terms “transceiver” and “transmitter” post-institution.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,127,984 - PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01336 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–10, 13–14, 17, and 21–25 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and no basis for General Plastic denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“we determine that discretionary denial is not appropriate in the circumstances of this case. With respect to General Plastic factor 1, we agree with Patent Owner that Cisco is a customer of Petitioner and was identified by Petitioner as a real party in interest, and therefore has a “significant relationship” with Petitioner under Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) (“Valve”). However, we are mindful of the Director’s finding in Code200 that “General Plastic factor 1 must be read in conjunction with factors 2 and 3,” and that “[w]here the first-filed petition under factor 1 was discretionarily denied or otherwise was not evaluated on the merits, factors 1–3 only weigh in favor of discretionary denial when there are ‘roadmapping’ concerns under factor 3 or other concerns under factor 2.” Code200 at 5.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (2020). The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s in EE/CE/CS, physics, or equivalent, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures, protocols and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner further states that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not offer a proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’802 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingOther
“III. MOTION FOR JOINDER As noted above, Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder to the Samsung IPR. Paper 3. Because the Samsung IPR has been terminated, we find that the Motion for Joinder is moot, and dismiss it accordingly.” slip op. at 20
Discretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,924,802 - Apple Inc. v. Proxsense LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 26, 2025 · IPR2024-01486 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–17 because Apple did not justify a second petition, and denied its motion to join IPR2024-00775.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“challenges a subset of the claims of the ’730 patent based on the prior art references Ludtke and Kon, while the instant Petition challenges all 17 claims of the ’730 patent based on the prior art references Burger and Robinson. Id. at 2–3. According to Petitioner, these are “significantly different invalidity grounds.” Id. at 3. However, Petitioner does not explain why challenging the same patent with different invalidity grounds, without more, justifies instituting both petitions.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’730 patent. We also deny Petitioner’s Joinder Motion.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“IPR2024-00775. Joinder Mot. 1. As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to joinder. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,352,730
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.