• Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2026 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–6, 11, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Doo and Amira; claims 12–19 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted tissue properties were not shown in Amira.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Federal Circuit. The court issued its decision in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp., No. 2024-1794, 2026 WL 587294 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2026) (“Medivis”) (Paper 40),1 affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, and remanding our Final Written Decision (Paper 35) for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed our “determination of no motivation to combine Doo and Amira” and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate whether claims 1–6 and 11–20 (“the Remanded Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,004,271 B2 (“the ’271 patent,” Ex. 1001) are unpatentable in view of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge over Doo and Amira. Medivis, slip op. at 9–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We issue this Final Written Decision on Remand pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 in an inter partes review involving Medivis, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and Novarad Corp. (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the entirety of the record in light of the Federal Circuit’s directives in Medivis, we hold that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–6, 11, and 20 are unpatentable; however, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 12–19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, except that we excise part of Petitioner’s definition to produce the following modified version: 4 Throughout this decision, we eliminate the parties’ italicization of reference names from quotations without noting “emphasis omitted.” 5 Doo, WO 2015/164402 A1, published October 29, 2015 (Ex. 1008). 6 Excerpt of Amira 5 User’s Guide, title through Chapter 2 (Visual Imaging 2009) (Ex. 1005). engineering, or a related field with several years of experience in the design, development, and study of augmented reality devices and . . . familiarity with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of data for medical procedures . . . . Our edit removes the alternative of “working with a team including someone with such familiarity” because one’s role in a team may be tangential to their personal experience with medical imaging. Regardless, had we adopted Petitioner’s original definition, our decision would not have changed.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the term “3D slices” has no apparent connection to the phrase “direct volume rendering.” Patent Owner’s argument appears to be that DVR “requires an image of the entire anatomical volume that is neither feature-specific nor segmented, [which] would seemingly require that all inner layers be displayed.” Reply 4; see Sur-reply 6–10 (not disputing Petitioner’s characterization). But, as Petitioner notes, the specification directly undermines this by teaching “display [of] a slice of the 3D data instead of a volume of the 3D data.” See Reply 4 n.2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:34–35). In other words, to the extent DVR would depict an image of the entire anatomical volume, displaying 3D slices “instead of a volume of the 3D data” implies the opposite of DVR. Even if “3D slices” somehow implied DVR, Patent Owner’s position is still untenable. Claim 1 does not recite “3D slices.” Instead, claim 1 recites “3D data” and “inner layers.” Ex. 1001, 18:54–65. Patent Owner fails to clarify the relationship between “slices,” “3D data,” and “layers,” and its expert even admits that slices and layers are two different things. See PO Resp. 13; Ex. 1022, 32:7–16 (agreeing that the words “slice” and “layer” are not “synonyms”), cited in Reply 4. We also agree with Petitioner that dependent claim 3 distinguishes slices and layers by reciting “slices of the projected inner layer.” Reply 4 (quoting Ex. 1001, 19:3–10). Thus, even if 3D slices somehow implied DVR, the language of claim 1 does not support limiting the claim this way.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “The determination of whether a document was publicly accessible “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For instance, courts routinely rely on the Wayback Machine to determine when a reference was first made available to the public. Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“District courts have taken judicial notice of the contents of webpages available through the Wayback Machine ‘as facts that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’”). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Medivis cannot rely on additional prior art”—Exhibits 1023 and 1024—“that was submitted after its Petition to carry its burden without leave from the Board.” Sur-reply 4. As Patent Owner did not file a motion to exclude these exhibits, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to disregard them. We also find Petitioner’s Reply argument proper because it directly responds to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner did not prove the public accessibility of Amira. See Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d, 919, 925 on issues previously raised.”). Petitioner’s Reply argument appropriately elaborates on the Petition’s contention that Amira was publicly accessible. Patent Owner also does not dispute the substance of Petitioner’s evidence. For example, Patent Owner does not address the substance of Mr. Frank-White’s declaration. We find that this evidence, including Mr. Frank- White’s declaration testimony, persuasively supports the public availability of Amira as of the date shown in the Wayback Machine URL. See Ex. 1024.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,004,271 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,004,271
• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01222 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 34–37 and 40–46 are unpatentable as obvious over the Yamazaki-based and Weaver-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner bears the burden of production to establish that its claimed invention is entitled to an earlier priority date for this fact-intensive issue. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We agree with Petitioner that the email chain does not support Patent Owner’s conception claim because it “does not discuss depositing a planarization layer, as required by both independent claims.” Pet. Reply 3. Patent Owner asserts that the inventor’s discussion of “PML” (polymer multi-layer) encapsulation in the email chain shows their conception of the claimed planarization layer because the ’389 patent describes that PMLs “‘[t]ypically’ include[e] ‘a planarization layer’ that ‘is provided to give a planar surface’ for deposition of an upper layer,” and “‘address ‘any point defects (i.e. pin holes)’ that might appear in the barrier layer’s surface.” PO Resp. 6 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:31–37, 1:41–44, 1:56–62). We disagree with Patent Owner for two reasons. First, the challenged patent’s specification does not corroborate that the inventors conceived the claimed planarization before the challenged patent’s priority because it did not exist at the time of the email. Whether the inventors, at the time of filing, considered PMLs to typically include a planarization layer as of the claimed priority date does not support the allegation that they conceived of that same planarization layer more than a year earlier. Moreover, the ’389 patent’s teaching that “[t]ypically, for PML structures, a planarization layer 106 is formed” (Ex. 1001, 1:30–31) shows that the inventors recognized PML structures and planarization layers were distinct because only a subset of PML structures formed planarization layers, even if they do so typically. Thus, the inventor’s discussion of a PML layer in the email chain does not evidence their conception of the claimed planarization layer, as Patent Owner contends. Additionally, even if we were to understand the inventors’ mention of PML encapsulation in the emails, together with the discussion of patterning techniques for an organic layer, as discussing a planarization layer, such discussions are evidence of brainstorming ideas, rather than documenting the path taken with the claimed invention. For instance, the inventors use phrases like “don’t know if this will work,” “these are all just ‘undeveloped’ ideas,” and “looking forward to keep this discussion rolling.” Ex. 2006, 1; see also Ex. 1034, 59:22−59:18. As Petitioner argues, and we agree, these are more theoretical and future-development discussions than an exchange of a definite idea. Pet. Reply 2−3 (citing Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artDecided for petitioner

    “B. Whether Petitioner Relies on Applicant Admitted Prior Art Patent Owner asserts we should “not consider” Yamazaki-based challenges because Petitioner included Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in those grounds. See PO Resp. 16 (citing Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., 134 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2025)) (holding that AAPA may not be part of the basis for an inter partes review). We disagree. As Petitioner notes, it “utilizes the AAPA in the alternative with Ghosh, to show that it was known to manufacture OLED devices in bulk (which [Patent Owner] does not dispute).” Pet. Reply 9. Because “[t]he Petition identifies disclosures in Ghosh that independently demonstrate the same teachings for which the AAPA is cited,” we agree with Petitioner that it does not improperly rely on AAPA for any of its challenges. Id.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Whether Yamazaki, Weaver, and Palanisamy Are Printed Publications under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) Patent Owner asserts that Yamazaki, Weaver, and Palanisamy do not qualify as printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) because they only qualify as prior art under § 102(e). PO Resp. 17. According to Patent Owner, “[e]ven though the Federal Circuit has held that such references are ‘printed publications’ under 311(b), to preserve arguments on appeal, Patent Owner submits that such an interpretation is inconsistent with the plain statutory language, the precedent, and non-public accessibility of an unpublished patent application.” Id. We disagree with this argument because the Federal Circuit has rejected it, as Patent Owner acknowledges. See Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2023-2346, Slip. Op. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2025).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Yamazaki does not involve multiple devices on a substrate” and Ghosh teaches “non-selective deposition of at least the barrier layer.” PO Resp. 31. We disagree with this argument because it attacks Yamazaki and Ghosh individually, rather than the combination of Yamazaki’s selective deposition and Ghosh’s plurality of devices that Petitioner asserts. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s criticism that Petitioner fails to explain why skilled artisans would have ignored Ghosh’s non-selective deposition method for barrier layers on multiple devices. PO Resp. 32. This argument attacks a straw man as Petitioner does not propose modifying Ghosh’s method with Yamazaki’s selective deposition. See Pet. 21–23. Rather, Petitioner proposes modifying Yamazaki’s selective deposition method by applying it to Ghosh’s teaching of encapsulating a plurality of OLED devices. Id. Next, Patent Owner asserts that skilled artisans would not have extended Yamazaki’s single-device fabrication/encapsulation method to a plurality of devices on a substrate because doing so would “multiply defects and errors, drop the yield exponentially, and increase the cost.” PO Resp. 34. Patent Owner asserts that precision/defect problems would be particularly acute when using Yamazaki’s inkjet method to print devices’ electro luminescence layers. Id. at 35–36. We disagree. Even if extending Yamazaki’s method to Ghosh’s multiple devices comes at a cost of potential defects, that tradeoff would not undermine Petitioner’s proffered combination given Petitioner’s articulated benefits outline above, including facilitating manufacturing display panels for OLEDs with improved throughput, improved productivity, and reduced manufacturing costs, as compared to fabricating/encapsulating just a single device. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.”). It also does not matter that “inkjet printing yielded devices of half the efficiency than spin coating,” as Patent Owner asserts (PO Resp. 35), because Petitioner does not need to show that Yamazaki’s inkjet printing would be the best option for batch fabrication/encapsulation, only that it would was a suitable one from which the prior art did not teach away. See Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc., 773 F. 3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir 2014). That is, Petitioner does not need to show that Yamazaki’s inkjet method was an improvement over other known fabrication/encapsulation methods, so long as it was a known fabrication/encapsulation method and skilled artisans would understand that implementing it for a plurality of devices had known advantages over fabricating/encapsulating a single device, which Petitioner identifies. See Pet. 22. We also agree with Dr. Subramanian that skilled artisans would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination given similarities between the references (both are directed to encapsulation of an OLED display device with multiple thin-film layers and at least the first encapsulation is selectively deposited) and because “as the ’389 patent admits, in the prior art it was conventional to use batch fabrication to manufacture OLED display devices with thin-film encapsulation.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 86. As Dr. Subramanian explains, a particular advantage of inkjet printing is that it scales well to larger areas and it was known at the time of the ’389 patent that inkjet could be used to print multiple devices on a glass substrate. Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 2, 27–28. Patent Owner’s argument that “Yamazaki’s methods are far from ready for manufacturing” (PO Resp. 34) goes well beyond what is necessary to show that skilled artisans would have had a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Given Petitioner’s analysis outlined above, we agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious to skilled artisans to fabricate and encapsulate multiple OLED devices on a substrate using Yamazaki’s ink-jet methods. slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,949,389 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,949,389
• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01187 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 8–11, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Ingle and Hasei; claims 3, 5, and 6 were not shown unpatentable because the Hanamura-based grounds lack the claimed trench.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “isolation, rather than in the claims’ context, and in light of the ’492 patent’s specification. In the trench/layers context of the ’492 patent, the word in requires more than it does in the circle/square context.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Physics, or a comparable field of study, and at least three years of research or industrial experience with semiconductor (organic or inorganic) optoelectronic devices and/or lighting or displays. An individual with additional education could have less research or industrial experience and vice-versa. Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed definition because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “rather than the combination of Ingle’s capacitor and Hasei’s droplet discharge application that Petitioner asserts. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Even if Ingle falls short of teaching structured application for its capacitor’s cathode, as Patent Owner argues, that does not undermine Petitioner’s challenge because Petitioner proposes using Hasei’s structured application (i.e., a droplet discharge device) to form the cathode of Ingle’s capacitor. See Pet. 24–25. Patent Owner’s additional argument that “Hasei contains no discussion of forming capacitors” (PO Resp. 36; see PO Sur-reply 17–18) is similarly flawed—it attacks Hasei individually, while ignoring Ingle’s capacitor teaching. We agree with Petitioner—the combination of Ingle and Hasei teaches structured application of the capacitor’s cathode. In addition, we disagree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner provides no reason why a POSITA would have extended Hasei’s method for producing its OLED to a capacitor.” PO Resp. 36; see PO Sur-reply 17 (asserting “pure conjecture”). To the contrary, as noted above, Petitioner explains, with relevant support from Hasei, that its structured application method reduced electrode-material waste and shortened manufacturing times as compared to photolithography. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 5, 7). Given those benefits, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support that its proffered combination would have been obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 9,257,492 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,257,492
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 14, 2026 · IPR2024-01088 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 9, 12, 19–22, 24–32, 36–43, 47, 58, 59, 63, 71, 74, 81–84, 86–94, 97–105, 109, 119–121, and 124 are unpatentable over Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin; claims 35 and 57 are not.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we noted that Petitioner’s definition left it unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition would be considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree,” and did not adopt the portion of the definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for a degree. Dec. on Inst. 9. Additionally we did not adopt Petitioner’s proposed additional requirement that one of ordinary skill “would have possessed extensive background knowledge and understanding of the pertinent technologies employed by the ’758 patent.” Id. We adopted, for the purposes of the Decision on Institution, the portion of the definition proposed by Petitioner requiring “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers” as consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’758 patent and prior art of record and supported by declarant testimony. Cockburn’s testimony regarding it (Ex. 2007, 9:7–23), and, for the same reasons discussed in the Decision on Institution, we adopt it here.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the snapshot menu and pressand-hold gesture of Martyn with Chaudhri as Petitioner proposes, resulting in a device that provides a contextual shortcut sub-menu of common application functions in response to a touch-and-hold user input. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony in Petitioner’s showing that Martyn’s contextual allow the user to accomplish recurring tasks more quickly. Pet. 15–17 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–62, 66–67). Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner provides a showing of a motivation to use, in the resulting combination, both Martyn’s menu and its mechanism for calling the menu. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Ex. 1067 ¶ 21. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s supported testimony of the motivation for the combination Petitioner proposes, using the teachings of Martyn identifying its App Snapshot called through a press-and-hold as allowing a user access to multiple options pertaining to one application at one time in one menu, for ease and speed of navigation. Pet. 15–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61, 63 & n.3, 68 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–8, 15); Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 20, 21. Additionally, we credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony regarding the analogousness of the touch-and-hold mechanism to trigger the menu to the press-and-hold trigger for the menu in Martyn, which Patent Owner criticizes as unsubstantiated (PO Sur-reply 18) but we find to be supported by record evidence. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Reply Br. 17 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 16–22), 20 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 30) ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1022 ¶ 183), 63 & n.3.” slip op. at 18

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

    “at first contending that these limitations require a continuous touch meeting both limitations; however, Patent Owner withdrew the request to construe the claim to require one continuous gesture to meet the two limitations, agreeing with Petitioner’s assertion that either one continuous gesture or two separate gestures could meet the limitations. PO Resp. 15–18; Pet. Reply 3– 5; PO Sur-reply 3–4; Tr. 28:20–29:2. Because we agree with the parties that this is the correct construction, there is no remaining controversy regarding this construction that would require us to decide any claim construction issue. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the snapshot menu and pressand-hold gesture of Martyn with Chaudhri as Petitioner proposes, resulting in a device that provides a contextual shortcut sub-menu of common application functions in response to a touch-and-hold user input. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony in Petitioner’s showing that Martyn’s contextual allow the user to accomplish recurring tasks more quickly. Pet. 15–17 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–62, 66–67). Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner provides a showing of a motivation to use, in the resulting combination, both Martyn’s menu and its mechanism for calling the menu. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Ex. 1067 ¶ 21. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s supported testimony of the motivation for the combination Petitioner proposes, using the teachings of Martyn identifying its App Snapshot called through a press-and-hold as allowing a user access to multiple options pertaining to one application at one time in one menu, for ease and speed of navigation. Pet. 15–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61, 63 & n.3, 68 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–8, 15); Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 20, 21. Additionally, we credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony regarding the analogousness of the touch-and-hold mechanism to trigger the menu to the press-and-hold trigger for the menu in Martyn, which Patent Owner criticizes as unsubstantiated (PO Sur-reply 18) but we find to be supported by record evidence. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Reply Br. 17 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 16–22), 20 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 30) ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1022 ¶ 183), 63 & n.3.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,656,758 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,656,758
• Texas Instruments Incorprated v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00934 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious over DeMaw and, separately, over Macnally.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “1. Principles of Law A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,496,342 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,496,342
• Exotec Product France SAS / Exotec North America Inc. et al. v. Opex CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00850 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–12, 14, and 23–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Raizer and Hangzhou.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9

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

    “C. Claim Construction Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes an express construction” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In this case, we must determine whether one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Hangzhou’s disclosure of driving its auto-guided trolleys 200 under shelves 100 would improve the operation of Raizer’s system in the same way. For us to resolve this question in Petitioner’s favor, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). However, bodily incorporation, i.e., “an actual physical substitution of” Hangzhou’s auto-guided trolleys or operating software into Raizer’s system, is not required. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,472,632 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,472,632
• Tesla, Inc. v. Graphite Charging Company, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00387 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20 over Kimura; claims 2, 5, 9, 12, and 16 over Kimura and Hotta; claims 3, 10, and 17 over Kimura and King.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We understand Petitioner’s phrase “experience working on software and/or hardware used to manage charging processes for electric vehicles” to encompass data processing systems similar to that proposed by Patent Owner, but with a slightly narrower area of application. We determine that Petitioner’s definition, as set out in the block quote above, is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For the purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, as block quoted above, of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same. Cf. Pet. Reply 15 (Petitioner asserting that “[Patent Owner] takes issue with the level of ordinary skill in the art . . ., but never argues that the level impacts how the Board should understand the arguments. Petitioner’s positions apply regardless.”).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded that the Specification evidences a clear intent by the patentees to redefine (either explicitly or by implication) or to otherwise narrow the scope of the claim terms “request” and “response,” as Patent Owner urges. The statements in the Specification upon which Patent Owner relies are referring to “Request 414” and “Response 418.” See PO Resp. 27 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:3–4, 12:12–14). As indicated by the reference numbers, the Specification is discussing a specific request and a specific response in the context of Figure 4, which is described as depicting “an illustrative embodiment.” See Ex. 1001, 10:51–53 (“FIG. 4 is a system for managing a charging process of an electric vehicle in accordance with an illustrative embodiment.”), 12:1–19, Fig. 4. By stressing the illustrative nature of the embodiment of Figure 4, the patentees indicated an intent for it to not be limiting. See also Ex. 1001, 15:44–47 (the Specification stating: “The description of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the invention in the form disclosed.”); Hill-Rom Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d at 1373 (“[T]hose terms [including, datalink 39] are used synonymously only in describing a particular numbered component in the figure depicting the preferred embodiment, and never in describing the datalink of the invention generally.”). At oral argument, Patent Owner’s counsel, relying on the opinion of Dr. Cameron, argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “read the definition without the reference numbers.” Tr. 43:23–44:9. Thus, we understand Patent Owner to argue that the Specification provides an explicit definition when one reads out a portion of the Specification—converting, for example, “Request 414 is a message” to “Request is a message.” This is not persuasive as it involves editing the evidence to conform to Patent Owner’s argument, rather than an argument supported by the Specification as written by the patentees. Patent Owner does not direct us to any portion of the Specification that clearly defines “request” and “response” generally or, for example, uses phrasing implying that those terms are defined for “the present invention.” See, e.g., Hill-Rom Services, Inc., 755 F.3d at 1372 (“For example, we have held that disclaimer applies when the patentee makes statements such as “the present invention requires . . .’ or ‘the present invention is . . .’ or ‘all embodiments of the present invention are . . . .’”); Astrazeneca, 384 F.3d at 1339 (discussing defining by implication and determining that the “specification’s statement that ‘[t]he solubilizers suitable according to the invention are defined below’ provides a strong signal of lexicography.”).” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We fail to discern a clear disparagement of the use of signals in the Specification that would justify excluding signals from the scope of the claimed invention. The Specification does not mention in these excerpts the use of signals, and thus does not characterize “using signals as less ‘complete, flexible, and interoperable,’” as Patent Owner impliedly argues. PO Sur-reply 11. The Specification characterizes “the most rudimentary charging scenarios” as including situations such as a car owner merely plugging the electric vehicle into a common electric outlet at the owner’s house, and suggests that illustrative embodiments are an improvement in that they apply to “much broader and more complex sets of circumstances than this simple scenario.” See Ex. 1001, 6:60–7:2. An example of a “complex transaction[]” is the car owner using a charging station located away from the owner’s house and being required to pay for the charge. See id. at 7:2– 11. To the extent there is any disparagement, it is merely of the simple scenario of the owner plugging the car into the standard household outlet. Cf. Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ([T]his court also recognizes that disparaging comments alone do not necessarily show a manifest or express disavowal of the criticized subject matter.”). Additionally, Patent Owner does not direct us to any portion of the Specification that indicates, for example, that the use of messages is a very important feature of the claimed invention and that alternatives (e.g., signals) are disparaged. See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d at 1372 (citing Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L., 450 F.3d at 1354–55); see id. at 1377 (holding that there is no disavowal or lexicography where “[t]here is no language that extolls the virtues of interfaces that both send and receive messages or language that disparages interfaces that only send messages.”).” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Sur-reply 15 (citing Ex. 1021, 161:5–21). Patent Owner overstates that testimony, which is that “[t]here’s actually disincentive for using messages all together.” Ex. 1021, 161:17–18. Regardless, even if correct, the existence of some disincentives does not necessarily negate a motivation to make the proposed combination. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”). We find that Petitioner’s assertion—that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by a desire to assure a safe and commercially-desirable system (Pet. 53)—to have rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Patent Owner argues that Dr. Cameron “explained [that] . . . it would not be simple because Hotta uses two-stage charging subroutines.” PO Sur-reply 16 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 118). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Cameron’s testimony. The cited paragraph 118 states that Hotta’s figures depict “two-stage charging subroutines different from both the ’391 patent and Kimura,” and that there are “fundamental differences.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 118. Dr. Cameron does not go so far as to opine that combining the teachings as Petitioner’s proposes would not be considered simple by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See id.; see also Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Leapfrog presents no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in this type of device was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.”). Dr. MacCarley, on the other hand, credibly testifies that “making use of Hotta’s command keys in Kimura’s system . . . would have been a simple substitution of one known element (Kimura’s lightly- described main switch) for another known element (Hotta’s command keys) to achieve predictable results (a charging process that can be stopped by pressing Hotta’s charging stop command key . . .).” Ex. 1009 ¶ 147. We credit Dr. MacCarley’s testimony over that of Dr. Cameron’s because it is consistent with a sufficiently reasoned rationale of a simple substitution and is supported by the references.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 8,103,391 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,103,391
• Abbott Laboratories / Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Altivera LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00425 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy; the Board did not reach the alternative Bandy grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. See generally PO Resp. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’307 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8–9.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “both the unique sensor ID as well as the associated unique wireless device ID is contradicted, or at least unsupported, by the claim language and the Specification. We determine that this limitation does not require authentication of both the unique sensor ID and the unique wireless device ID, or otherwise require authentication using the unique wireless ID. Rather, the limitation only requires authentication of the unique sensor ID. The language and structure of the claim itself, “the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID associated with said unique wireless device ID,” requires authentication of the unique sensor ID but not the unique wireless device ID. See Ex. 1001, 19:51–52 (emphasis added). The portion of the limitation reciting “associated with said unique wireless device ID” is linguistically an appositive modifying the “unique sensor ID.” Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges the “plain meaning of the claim term is that the remote server authenticates the unique sensor ID and that such unique sensor ID is associated with a unique wireless device ID.” PO Resp. 18.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed constructions of any of these other claim terms or phrases. PO Resp. 24. We agree with the parties that the identified limitations—which each recite a “means” or “means for” performing a particular function—are means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). And we agree with Petitioner’s uncontested identification of the recited functions and corresponding structure for these limitations for the reasons explained by Petitioner. See Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:20–21, 2:24–28, 3:33–36, 17:18–30); id. at 13–15 (citing Ex. 1009, 9:4–6, 9:19–20, 9:57–65, 10:10– 11) (explaining that Lovejoy is incorporated by reference into the ’307 Patent). We adopt the uncontested constructions identified by Petitioner, as” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that the improvements offered by the incorporation of Heller’s teachings would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Beck and Heller in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Confirming Petitioner’s assertion that the combination yields improvements, Heller states that it improves the type of glucose monitor used in one of Beck’s embodiments. Beck states that its “medical device 130 includes a glucose meter” which “measure[s] blood glucose levels of blood applied to test strips.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 34. Specifically addressing such “conventional” test strip glucose monitoring, Heller states that its in vivo glucose sensor system addresses a need for continuous or automatic monitoring in a small, comfortable device. Ex. 1016, 2:1–7, 2:15–58, 3:19–25. As such, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Beck and Heller to improve Beck’s medical device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. We further agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate sensor implementation details described in Heller, e.g., an A/D converter and patient attachment systems, with Beck’s medical device. Pet. 44–45, 53, 55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 228, 234, 236–238, 259, 267, 278, which do no more than yield predictable results, e.g., converting signals or attaching a sensor to a patient. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401 (“[A] combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,969,307 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,969,307
• Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00465 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1–10 and 12–24 as obvious over Szrek and Llach, and claim 11 as obvious over Szrek, Llach, and Gilmore.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art is an artisan with a working knowledge of POS activation systems and lottery systems that was gained through a mixture of training and work experience in the relevant field such as (i) having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer communications, electrical engineering, or equivalent degree, coupled with at least three years of work experience; (ii) having a Master’s degree in computer science, computer communications, or electrical engineering, but having less work experience; or (iii) having no formal degree, but having experience in the relevant field of at least six years of work experience. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 13–14).9 Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purpose of this proceeding, Patent Owner adopts the Petition’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 19 (citing Pet. 2–3). We find that the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’451 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 14; see Okajima v. 9 Petitioner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art that the Board adopted in PGR2020-00084 (Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1008, 11)), and IPR2023- 01235 (see IPR2023-01235, Paper 34 at 12–13). 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). Therefore, we adopt the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We need not construe “transaction processor” expressly because its meaning is not in dispute and its construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “On balance, we find that even with the alleged disadvantages identified by Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Szrek with Llach’s third-party transaction processor because the advantage of having a “centralized intermediary” allows Szrek’s system to support different game providers, such as different lottery companies, which would reduce some implementation costs and allow the system to be more easily and cheaply extended. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 181); see Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (citing Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); see also Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the same). We acknowledge that the combination comes with some disadvantages, including “add[ed] delay, reduce[d] efficiency, and . . . implementation complexities by converting a simple, direct communication exchange into an exchange that traverses multiple systems.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2052 ¶ 163). But, “[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8. Here, Szrek expressly teaches indirect communication as a possible implementation of its system and Petitioner’s combination—employing Llach’s third-party transaction processor as part of the indirect communication channel—offers the attractive benefit of allowing Szrek’s system to support different game providers, which would reduce some implementation costs even if it might increase other costs, e.g., by having to program certain components (e.g., the cash registers) differently. Specifically, we find that the ability to expand Szrek’s system to support different game providers provides advantages that outweigh the disadvantages discussed above in the circumstance where one desires a more robust and comprehensive system. See Pet. Reply 23 (noting three advantages of the combination— (1) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to use ‘a centralized system for activating lottery tickets from different retailers and different locations,’” (2) “allow[ing] support for different game providers, such as different lottery companies,” “reduc[ing] implementation costs,” and (3) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to ‘communicate with individual card” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “On balance, we find that even with the alleged disadvantages identified by Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Szrek with Llach’s third-party transaction processor because the advantage of having a “centralized intermediary” allows Szrek’s system to support different game providers, such as different lottery companies, which would reduce some implementation costs and allow the system to be more easily and cheaply extended. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 181); see Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (citing Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); see also Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the same). We acknowledge that the combination comes with some disadvantages, including “add[ed] delay, reduce[d] efficiency, and . . . implementation complexities by converting a simple, direct communication exchange into an exchange that traverses multiple systems.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2052 ¶ 163). But, “[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8. Here, Szrek expressly teaches indirect communication as a possible implementation of its system and Petitioner’s combination—employing Llach’s third-party transaction processor as part of the indirect communication channel—offers the attractive benefit of allowing Szrek’s system to support different game providers, which would reduce some implementation costs even if it might increase other costs, e.g., by having to program certain components (e.g., the cash registers) differently. Specifically, we find that the ability to expand Szrek’s system to support different game providers provides advantages that outweigh the disadvantages discussed above in the circumstance where one desires a more robust and comprehensive system. See Pet. Reply 23 (noting three advantages of the combination— (1) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to use ‘a centralized system for activating lottery tickets from different retailers and different locations,’” (2) “allow[ing] support for different game providers, such as different lottery companies,” “reduc[ing] implementation costs,” and (3) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to ‘communicate with individual card” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 11,488,451 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,488,451
• Microsoft Corporation v. Interdigital Patent Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00306 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held all challenged claims of the ’933 and ’054 patents unpatentable as obvious over Ahya and McKillop, with ’933 claims 20, 21, 42, and 43 also relying on Aholainen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one to three devices that used common wireless communications protocols such as Bluetooth and 802.11/Wi-Fi. More education, e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D., would compensate for less work experience and vice versa. 305 Pet. 13–14; accord 306 Pet. 14. Patent Owner “has adopted Microsoft’s definition for this proceeding.” 305 PO Resp. 6; accord 306 PO Resp. 6. Neither party argues that a particular level of ordinary skill in the art makes a difference in the outcome of the issues presented in these proceedings. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find to be consistent with the record evidence, particularly because it specifies having one to three years of experience working with wireless devices that use Bluetooth and 802.11.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We conclude that for the purposes of this Decision, we need not determine whether the claim term “detecting” encompasses “soliciting” detectable responses from other devices, as Patent Owner proposes, Sur- Reply 3, or whether Petitioner is correct that “solicitation and detection are distinct acts, and thus using Bluetooth for solicitation is not using Bluetooth for detection.” Reply 5. As discussed in Section IV above, “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). Here, it is not necessary to construe the term “detecting” to determine that no presumption of nexus exists because, for the reasons discussed below, we find that AirDrop is not coextensive with the challenged claims under either party’s interpretation of the term.” slip op. at 38

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “device uses significantly less power than if a high speed seek was used.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 43. However, once a connection between two devices is established, Petitioner persuasively argues that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to implement devices based on these teachings to switch from Bluetooth to Wi-Fi to transfer content, as taught by McKillop, because Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have reasonably expected to succeed in implementing these features because they would have required only minor software code that was well within the skill of a POSITA, as evidenced by these features’ ubiquity in the prior art.” Pet. 19–20; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–45 (ubiquity in the prior art), 72 (only “minor software code” required). Petitioner also persuasively argues that one of ordinary skill “would have been further motivated to implement the Ahya+McKillop wireless devices to prompt users to accept or deny incoming file transfers, as described by numerous background references[,]” and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 22; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46– 51 (background references), 78–81 (motivation), 83 (only “minor software code” required to implement combination). We find that on the full record Petitioner has sufficiently established that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to combine Ahya and McKillop. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Here, the evidence demonstrates that AirDrop includes significant unclaimed features that are likely to have been major contributors to any commercial success or industry praise that Apple’s AirDrop-equipped devices have enjoyed. This is true even if the analysis is limited to the AirDrop feature itself, rather than to the entire Apple device. See Sur- Reply 10–11 (“Patent Owner is not claiming the commercial success of the iPhone to show a presumptive nexus. “). Petitioner identifies three major features of AirDrop that are not part of the claimed invention: (1) device visibility controls implemented using iCloud services-based authentication; (2) security, including encryption; and (3) tight integration within the Apple ecosystem. Reply 8; Ex. 1086 ¶ 15. We find that the evidence of these features is sufficient to rebut Patent Owner’s claim that it is entitled to a presumption of nexus.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 9,173,054 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,173,054

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.