- Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 13, 2026 · IPR2024-00913 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable over Blease, Weyman, and Hu, with some claims also over Deng; claims 8–10 and 18 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“disclosure in Weyman (or Blease) for deactivating and activating ports, or performing certain actions in the time between such actions. Again, the only portion of Weyman cited pertains to a request to join the fabric from a processing unit having a “default” configuration, which does not relate to the timing or sequence of events in initialization. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 69, 156, 161–162; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 93–94. Nor does Dr. Lavian point to any other evidence in the record supporting his conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “ensure[d] that the processing unit is deactivated prior to being updated for use . . . and then activate[d] the processing unit after updating.” See Ex. 1103 ¶ 94. Accordingly, we give little weight to Dr. Lavian’s conclusory opinion” slip op. at 75
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“See Axonics, 73 F.4th at 957; Allied Erecting, 825 F.3d at 1381; Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332–33. Petitioner’s position is that, based on the teachings of Weyman, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Blease’s system to distribute the functionality of control unit 44 (including its existing multicast forwarding information 48 used by OIF mapper 50). See Pet. 23–26, 38; Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corp., 28 F.4th 1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“That the proposed combination of [two references]—rather than one of the individual references—discloses the disputed claim limitations does not defeat the Board’s conclusion of obviousness. In this case, it is sufficient that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art in a way such that the combination discloses the claim limitations.”).” slip op. at 55
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“10 In the Cisco IPR, we determined that Cisco had proven claims 8 and 18 to be unpatentable based on a different combination of references (identified as Weyman, Jain, and LeMaire), finding that limitation 8[f.ii] was taught by Jain and LeMaire. IPR2024-00506, Paper 38 at 58–77. As explained herein, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments in this proceeding that limitation 8[f.ii] is taught or suggested by Weyman. Also, in the Decision on Institution in this proceeding, the Board found that there were questions as to Petitioner’s showing for limitation 8[f.ii] and declined to reach a conclusion on whether Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground based on Blease and Weyman. Dec. on Inst. 43.” slip op. at 71
Patent outcomesUS 8,014,394 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,014,394 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00893 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 8, 11, 12, 15, 20, 23, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Gai and IEEE 1999.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that at the time of the application for the ’986 patent (January 2002), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field, plus at least two years of industry experience or graduate-level academic experience with computer networking.” Pet. 20. In the Decision on Institution, the Board agreed with and applied Petitioner’s proposed definition, removing the phrase “at least” to avoid unnecessary ambiguity. Dec. on Inst. 18–19. Patent Owner uses Petitioner’s proposed definition for its Response. PO Resp. 5. Neither party made any further argument regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art in its papers during trial. In the Cisco IPR, we adopted a similar definition, determining that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or in an equivalent field, or approximately two years of experience working in the field of information technology and networking,” where “[l]ack of professional experience can be substituted by additional education, and vice versa.” IPR2024-00505, Paper 29 at 10–11 (alteration in original); see Dec. on Inst. 19 n.7 (noting the proposed definition in the Cisco IPR). Based on the full record developed during trial, including our review of the ’986 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’986 patent and cited prior art, we adopt the same definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as the Cisco IPR and apply it for purposes of this Petitioner’s similar proposed definition in this proceeding.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Gai discloses entering an Enable_Uplinkfast command at an access switch (e.g., access switch 114) to block a failed port (e.g., the root port) and configure the access switch to send dummy traffic upstream through a new active port. . . . When modified in view of IEEE 1999’s disclosure that self-healing network traffic can advantageously be sent both upstream and downstream, the command would be entered at a backbone switch (e.g., backbone switch 122) to block a failed port (e.g., a designated port connected to access switch 114) and configure the backbone switch to send dummy traffic downstream to an access switch (e.g. access switch 114) through a new active port. While Gai uses its protocol signaling command, Enable_Uplinkfast, to send dummy traffic through a new root port, [a person of ordinary skill in the art] would deem it an obvious implementation detail to modify the parameters of the port on a backbone switch. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 139 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 6, ll. 39–46).” slip op. at 34
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Cisco IPR, we addressed four claim terms in the final written decision: “access switch” and “edge switch,” which appear in independent claims 1 and 13 and various dependent claims, and “downstream” and “upstream,” which appear in claims 11, 12, 23, and 24. IPR2024-00505, Paper 29 at 11–14. We interpreted “access switch” to mean “a switch with ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems,” interpreted “edge switch” to mean “a core switch that is directly connected to an access switch,” interpreted “downstream” to mean “away from the root switch,” and interpreted “upstream” to mean “toward the root switch.” Id. As noted above, Patent Owner did not appeal that decision. We incorporate herein our previous analysis in the Cisco IPR, but note that none of the analysis of the disputed issues below depends on such determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove unpatentability of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“1999, supported by the testimony of Mr. McNair, which we credit, is persuasive. See Pet. 25–30, 40–46; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–145, 165–174. Based on the full trial record, we find that Gai and IEEE 1999 teach limitation [1E] and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine their teachings in the manner described by Petitioner. Based on all of the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 3 would have been obvious over Gai and IEEE 1999 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 4. Claims 8, 15, and 20 Claim 8 depends indirectly from independent claim 1. Claims 15 and 20 depend indirectly from independent claim 13, which is similar to claim 1 but recites a network switching device rather than a method. As to independent claim 13, Patent Owner refers to its earlier arguments regarding claim 1, asserting that limitation [13C] is “substantially similar” to limitation [1E]. PO Resp. 14–15. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments for the reasons explained above. See supra Section II.D.3.b. Patent Owner does not argue dependent claims 8, 15, and 20 separately from their respective parent claims 1 and 13. See PO Resp. 19. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence, including the testimony of Mr. McNair, and are persuaded that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 8, 15, and 20 would have been obvious based on Gai and IEEE 1999 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the reasons stated by Petitioner. See Pet. 21–46, 48–52, 55–59; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–175, 179–185, 194–203.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 6,917,986 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,917,986 - Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00296 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“December 18, 2012, would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with image capture and processing systems or related fields.” Pet. 7 (citing Karam Decl. ¶ 91). Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less and/or different education, but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. According to Petitioner, [t]he prior art also evidences such level of skill.” Id. Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 53–54). For this Decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.10” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Post-institution, Patent Owner invites us to construe limitation 1[f]’s recitation of “mirror tracking mode” and limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.” PO Resp. 9–14. Regarding the latter, Patent Owner explains that “[i]n the District Court Litigation, ‘adaptive transformation mapping’ was construed as ‘continuously variable transformation mapping’ and ‘transformation mapping’ was construed as a ‘selected set of image transformations.’” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2008, 14, 37; Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 25, 27). Patent Owner does not, however, identify any way that those claim constructions affect our analysis of the parties’ patentability disputes. We find it unnecessary in resolving the parties’ patentability disputes to construe expressly limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.”” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,110 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Eyesmatch Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00810 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4. Thus, on the whole, Petitioner’s shifting, scattered arguments do not persuasively address limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Haan and Francois. And Petitioner’s arguments and evidence addressing claims 2–6, 10–12, 16, and 17 do not cure the foregoing deficiencies in the challenge of claim 1. Pet. 46–52. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of claims 1–6, 10–12, 16, and 17 would have been obvious over Haan and Francois.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have combined these references “to correct image distortions and provide a more realistic mirror image.” Pet. 52–55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 242–249. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that by specifically disclosing “flipping” the image, Rosenberg is discouraging or teaching away from performing other transformations to achieve its objective of “replicat[ing] the performance of a standard household mirror.” See PO Resp. 35, 38–39 (Patent Owner asserting lack of motivation to combine the references). A reference may be said to “teach away” “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Galderma Lab'ys, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2009)). “A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.” Id. Further, when conducting an obviousness analysis, the Board must consider a prior art reference “not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We are not convinced that the references before us “teach away” from performing the other transformations. In sum, we find for the reasons given that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that to a person of ordinary skill, Rosenberg alone or with Park teaches or suggests limitation 1[f].” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“shows by a preponderance of the evidence that limitations 1[c] and 1[e] are taught or suggested by Rosenberg and Park, in combination. Pet. 58–64; PO Resp. 39–40; Reply 19–20; Sur-reply 19. Petitioner persuades us that limitations 1[c] and 1[e], would have been obvious over Rosenberg and Park, in combination. Pet. 58–64; Reply 19–20. Patent Owner’s counter arguments are unavailing for multiple reasons. Patent Owner’s arguments fail because they improperly attack Rosenberg’s teachings individually, rather than addressing Petitioner’s combination of the references. PO Resp. 39–40; Sur-reply 19. This is fatal to Patent Owner’s arguments. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, Petitioner presents persuasive arguments and evidence that the references, in combination, teach limitations 1[c] and 1[e], including persuasive evidence that the references’ tilting, resizing, and zooming meet the claim limitations’ “adaptive transformation mapping . . . to generate modified images that appear to be captured from a different point of view” that “corresponds to an image taken from a different angle and a different distance.” Pet. 58–64 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67, 253–268; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26–28, 50, 52, 61, 75 ; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 50–51, 59, Figs. 6A–6B, 7, 8, 14, 15; Ex. 1019, 16–20; Ex. 1021, 2:19–27, 17:19–24, 21:60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11); Reply 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 253–268; Ex. 1021, 17:17–23; Ex. 2012, 63:13–22, 111:13–21). Regarding tilting, after noting the ’110 patent’s disclosure (incorporated from the ’109 patent) of performing tilt transformations (Pet. 10–11), Petitioner advances persuasive evidence that Park discloses such a tilting transformation, thereby teaching the claimed “different angle” (id. at 61–63). Regarding resizing and zooming, citing extensive discussion in the ’110 patent (incorporated from the ’109 patent) of resizing and/or zooming to address the effects of varying distance between an object and a camera, Petitioner and Dr. Karam explain that the prior art’s zooming and resizing meet the claimed “different distance.” Pet. 63 (Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1021, 17:19–23, 21:57–60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11); Ex. 1003 ¶ 265 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1021, 17:19–23, 21:57–60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11). In its counterarguments, Patent Owner suggests that zooming and resizing do not account for “occlusion effects,” but Patent Owner does not persuasively tie this argument to the ’110 patent, failing to cite any portion of the ’110 patent that evinces its invention addresses such effects. PO Resp. 23–25, 39–40.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,110 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00506 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–18 are unpatentable as obvious over the combinations of prior art listed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“d) Conclusion Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Weyman and Li collectively” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 8,014,394 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,014,394 - Qualcomm Incorporated v. Unm Rainforest InnovationsAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 30, 2025 · IPR2021-00375 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Remand
Proposed substitute claims 44–47, 49, and 50 are unpatentable as obvious under collateral estoppel; the Board denied Patent Owner’s motion to amend.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“the Acting Director of the USPTO (Paper 81, “Acting Director’s Order”) and after a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) in ZyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, 107 F.4th 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Federal Circuit Decision”) regarding the Board’s original Final Written Decision (Paper 68, “Final Written Decision” or “Final Dec.”) in this proceeding. In particular, the court remanded to the Board to determine if proposed substitute claims 44–47, 49, and 50 are unpatentable as obvious under collateral estoppel based on the court’s holding that claims 1–4 and 6–8 are unpatentable as obvious. ZyXEL, 107 F.4th at 1371, 1384.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“proposed substitute claim 44 presents the same issues as those litigated before the Federal Circuit: whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first key element and whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the second key element.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Final Written Decision, and the Federal Circuit Decision, as well as the postremand briefing, we determine that the application of collateral estoppel to proposed substitute claim 44 is appropriate. It is also appropriate to apply collateral estoppel to substitute claims 45–47, 49, and 50. This is because proposed substitute claims 45–47, 49, and 50 depend from proposed substitute claim 44 and recite identical limitations to dependent claims 2–4, 6, and 7. Therefore, the resolution of the question of obviousness of the subject matter of proposed substitute claims 45–47, 49, and 50 necessarily presents the same issues of whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first key element and whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the second key element.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 8,265,096 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,265,096 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00503 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations did not cure the failure to show the claimed request and routing steps.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’279 patent in January 2001 “would have had a working knowledge of the network communication technologies that are pertinent to the ’279 patent, including network flow allocation in a ring topology.” Pet. 12. More specifically, Petitioner argues, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a master’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to network communications and resource allocations,” where “[a]dditional work experience can substitute for specific educational background, and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner represents that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition” for the purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 5. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’279 patent, and, therefore, we likewise adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Neither party contends that any formal claim construction is necessary. See Pet. 12 (“Petitioner submits that, for the purposes of this proceeding and the grounds presented herein, no claim term requires express construction.”); PO Resp. 4 (“Here, at this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner will apply the ordinary and customary meaning to the ’279 Patent’s claim terms.”). Patent Owner notes, however, that Petitioner had asserted specific constructions in the Cisco litigation for the term “predetermined,” as recited in claims 1, 10, 14–16, and 18, and for the term “quantum.” PO Resp. 4. Specifically, according to Patent Owner, Petitioner proposed that “predetermined” be construed as “determined before the data flow request” and that “quantum” be construed as “an amount of a requested resource by which to increase or decrease.” Id. (citing Ex. 2007). Patent Owner contends asserted prior art combinations disclose or render obvious the challenged claims under these constructions. Id. Because our conclusion that Petitioner has not demonstrated that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable does not turn on the construction of either “predetermined” or “quantum,” there is no need for us to construe those terms. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 12
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We again are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. As an initial matter, we find no argument with respect to “best effort data traffic” or dropped packets in the Petition. See Tr. 12:10–21 (conceding that “the phrase ‘best effort’ was not in the Petition” but arguing that it was raised in response to the Patent Owner Response). Moreover, we are unable to identify any argument in the Patent Owner Response to which this line of argument is properly responsive, and Petitioner does not identify any such line of argument. Instead, Petitioner’s argument appears to advance belatedly a new theory. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 73–74, available at” slip op. at 43
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“We credit the supporting testimony of Dr. Olivier on the points discussed above, as it is explained sufficiently and consistent with the testimony simply mirrors the Petition and does not explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Kovvali in the manner Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 35; Reply 17–18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 83.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 7,035,279 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,035,279 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00505 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16–19, 21, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Gai under theory 1B; claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“patent, we look to “1) the types of problems encountered in the art; 2) the prior art solutions to those problems; 3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; 4) the sophistication of the technology; and 5) the educational level of active workers in the field.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 666–67 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate.” Id. at 667.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“The most common type of MAC bridge is a switch, which has multiple ports connecting it to LANs, other switches, host computing systems, or other network elements. Switches can be roughly classified as access switches or core switches. An access switch has ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems. Core switches interconnect the access switches into a Wide Area Network (WAN), by direct connection between the core switch and access switches and/or by connection to other core switches. Core switches that are directly connected to access switches are referred to herein as edge switches. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27–38. Both parties refer to this disclosure when arguing whether particular switches in the asserted prior art (Gai) qualify as an “access switch” or “edge switch.” See Pet. 5, 22, 27–28 (“edge switches are ‘[c]ore switches that are directly connected to access switches’”), 71; PO Resp. 31–32 (“The ’986 patent discloses that ‘[a]n access switch has ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints.’ . . . The ’986 patent also discloses that edge switches are ‘[c]ore switches that are directly connected to access switches.’”); Reply 20, 22. Dr. Houh and Dr. Olivier do so as well. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39, 66–67, 82–83, 166, 171, 193; Ex. 2001 ¶ 80. Based on the full trial record, we agree and conclude that the descriptions of “access switch” and “edge switch” in the ’986 patent reflect what was understood to be the plain and ordinary meanings of these terms at the time of the invention. Accordingly, we interpret “access switch” to mean a switch with ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems, and interpret “edge switch” to mean a core switch that is directly connected to an access switch.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“and conclude that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to designate switch 117 as the root switch when implementing the network reconfiguration method of Gai. The only mention of an access switch connected to port 7 of switch 114 is at column 13, lines 59–63 of Gai. While that sentence establishes that such an access switch may exist in the network, it does not state or imply that it would be the root switch. Instead, when discussing the operation of the Figure 1 network, Gai only identifies switches 120 and 121 as the root switch. See Ex. 1005, col. 10, ll. 37–41, col. 11, ll. 60–64, col. 14, ll. 16–20, col. 15, ll. 27–29, 38–51, col. 16, ll. 42–45. To be sure, Gai does disclose that “execution of the spanning tree algorithm causes the switches to elect a single switch, among all the switches within each network, to be the ‘root’ switch,” where “[e]ach switch has a unique numerical identifier (switch ID) and the root is the switch having the lowest switch ID numeric value,” such that an access switch can be the root switch if it has the lowest switch ID. See Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 42–47, col. 10, ll. 29–36. As Patent Owner and Dr. Olivier explain in detail, though, Gai expressly cautions against doing so. Gai discloses that [d]epending on the configuration of a given network, the location of the root can significantly affect the distance that messages must travel. For example, many networks include a plurality of switches designated as access switches that provide connectivity to LANs, end stations, etc., and a plurality of backbone switches that, in turn, interconnect the various access switches. If the root is located at an access switch and the principal server utilized by the end stations (i.e., clients) is coupled to a backbone switch, the average distance between end stations and the primary server may be quite high, resulting in inefficient network operation. In addition, the backbone switches may become partitioned as ports between them are blocked. Id. at col. 3, ll. 17–29; see also id. at col. 10, ll. 26–29 (the “location of the root may affect the average distance (i.e., the average number of hops) a message travels and/or cause undesirable partitioning of backbone switches”). Thus, the location of the root is not an unimportant consideration—it affects the distance messages must travel and can cause backbone switches to be partitioned. See id. Gai, therefore, discloses that “[t]o reduce the average distance and avoid partitioning of the backbone switches, it is desirable to locate the root at a backbone switch.”10 Id. at col. 3, ll. 29–31 (emphasis added). Switch 117 in Petitioner’s modified Figure 1 is an access switch, not a backbone switch. See id. at col. 6, ll. 10–12 (“Access switches are preferably coupled to entities (e.g., LANs, end stations, etc.) whereas backbone switches provide the interconnections between access switches.”).” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed
“We agree with Petitioner. For purposes of claim 1, which does not recite “downstream” communication of dummy traffic (unlike claims 11, 12, 23, and 24), the only modification to Figure 1 is the addition of switch 117 and server 112e—otherwise, in Petitioner’s analysis, Gai’s method operates exactly as described when a failure occurs at root port 3 of switch 114. See Pet. 69–73, 81–85; Tr. 47:20–48:2. That modification is expressly supported by Gai, which discloses the following: Rapid reconfiguration entity 234 similarly generates one or more separate multicast messages 400 for each remaining entity directly coupled to access switch 114 (i.e., entities or end stations on LANs 102–104). In each message 400, entity 234 loads SA field 414 with the address of the corresponding entity. Each of these messages are similarly forwarded by access switch 114 through the new forwarding port (i.e., port number four). In addition, entity 234 generates and transmits one or more multicast messages 400 for entities reachable through switch 114 on ports other than its root port. For example, if port number seven at switch 114 were coupled to another access switch, entity 234 would transmit multicast messages 400 carrying the source address of entities directly coupled to this additional access switch as well. Thus, at least one multicast message 400 is generated and transmitted for each entity directly coupled to or downstream of access switch 114 (relative to the root). As set forth above, upon receipt of these multicast messages 400, the other devices within network 100 update their corresponding filtering databases with the new destination ports, as necessary. Ex. 1005, col. 13, l. 50–col. 14, l. 3 (emphasis added). Gai thus expressly contemplates the addition of “another access switch” coupled to port 7 of switch 114. Switch 117 in the modified Figure 1 is such a switch. See PO Resp. 30 (Patent Owner arguing that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that switch 117 is an access switch”); Ex. 1018, 84:14–85:9 (Dr. Olivier agreeing that switch 117 is an “access switch”). And because an “access switch” has “ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems,” and the above disclosure mentions “entities directly coupled to th[e] additional access switch,” switch 117 would be directly connected to a device like server 112e as well. See Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 31–33; Ex. 1005, col. 13, ll. 59–63; supra Section II.B. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that Gai in its written description expressly discloses the particular “variation of the topology” of Figure 1 that Petitioner asserts. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 165. Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Gai to meet the claims.” PO Resp. 14–16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 47–49). Patent Owner’s arguments are primarily directed to Petitioner’s asserted modification for its “1A” theory. See id. To the extent Patent Owner’s arguments apply to claim 1 and “1B,” we disagree, as Gai expressly describes the asserted modification to Figure 1 (i.e., adding an access switch connected to port 7 of switch 114). Thus, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the method of claim 1 based on Gai’s full disclosure.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,917,986 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,917,986 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00287 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9–12, 14–16, and 22–24 are unpatentable under § 103 over Riepling and Meisels, or Riepling, Manzano, and Meisels; claim 13 was disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. We apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction of “representation of the at least one file.” Petitioner is correct that a representation of a file is not the file itself, but (in keeping with the ordinary meaning of “representation”) is rather some sign or symbol that stands for the folder. Reply 2. This is confirmed by the explicit example of a representation of a folder in the ʼ906 application, illustrated in the portion of Figure 6B reproduced below (highlighted here for purposes of explanation). This portion of Figure 6B depicts representations of two files: “FamilyHistory.docx” and “XmasLetter-2012.pdf.” The ’906 application specifically states: [A] located data resources dialog UI element 630b . . . includes a presentation space 632b for presenting a user detectable representation of some or all of the data objects identified in the received data object identification response from . . . second node 504. Ex. 2004 ¶ 147 (emphasis added). The entries in the above figure are representations of the files, not the files themselves. The actual files are stored in the file system storage associated with the user’s node, and only retrieved if the user selects the “Access” or “Access All” elements. Id. ¶ 148. Patent Owner misconstrues the claim 22 language, “a first representation of the at least one file, in a location among one or more folders, that is stored at the at least one server” and “a second representation of the at least one file, in a location among one or more folders, that is stored at the first node.” Patent Owner infers from this language that the representation is itself a file that is “in a location among one or more folders” and is stored on a server or at a node. PO Resp. 17. Not so — the representation of a file, such as “FamilyHistory.docx” in the above figure, is not stored at a server or node, but rather is simply displayed on a screen. As the ’906 application states: A representation of a program entity may be stored and/or otherwise maintained in a presentation space. As used in this document, the term “presentation space” refers to a storage region allocated and/or otherwise provided for storing presentation information . . . . A screen of a display, for example, is a presentation space.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“because (i) Riepling and Meisels are from the same field of endeavor, directed to sharing files over a network; (ii) the combination would have yielded expected, predictable results, using known and routine computer programming principles, to modify Riepling’s system to generate an electronic message that includes a link pointing to an uploaded file; (iii) the combination would have been readily implemented given Meisels’ teachings of inserting, in an electronic message, a link to a shared location where a file is uploaded; and (iv) the combination was suggested because Meisels expressly disclosed a benefit of sending an email message with a link, to avoid multiple copies of a file from existing at multiple locations, and sending links to one file to multiple recipients and managing permissions on an individual recipient basis. Pet. 67–70 (citing Ex. 1107, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 2, 4, 19; Ex. 1108, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 1, 3, 41–45, 56; Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 194–198). In addition, for reasons similar to the motivation basis, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Id. at 70–71 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 199–200). Other than its arguments directed to ’520 claim requirement 9[l], discussed below in Section III.D.4.d), Patent Owner does not further address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the combination of Riepling and Meisels. As discussed in that section, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have applied the document link teachings of Meisels to modify Riepling. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Riepling and Meisels in the manner argued by Petitioner.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that set content field 325 of Riepling teaches or suggests claim requirement 9[b]. As Petitioner’s expert explains, the fact that field 325 has an appearance identical to that of fields 321–324 in Figure 3, which fields are specifically stated to be “text field[s],” strongly suggests that field 325 is also a text field. Mowry Decl. ¶ 70; see also Reply 10–11. Patent Owner’s suggestion that field 325 could be a dropdown list or other type of field is contradicted by the fact that it does not show the typical dropdown arrow associated with a dropdown box, or other typical non-textbox appearance such as the checkbox appearance of field 320. Moreover, in the example of Figure 3, the “Set Content” entry is “audio,” which is a file description. Reply 10. The fact that “JPEG” is checked in field 320 is not inconsistent with the “audio” entry in field 325, given that, as Riepling explains, “it may be possible for audio files such as MP3 files to contain non-MP3 data, such as JPEG data embedded within the MP3 files.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1107 ¶ 32; Mowry 2nd Decl. ¶ ¶ 101–104). Also, there is no reason why the Figure 5 response that gives the uploader the ability to provide additional description of the file being uploaded is inconsistent with the ability of the requester first describing what type of file is being requested via field 325 in Figure 3. Id. at 11–12. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that the record supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim requirement 9[b].” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 11,611,520 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00286 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 17–21 are unpatentable under § 103 over Houston and Garcia; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We conclude that there is no basis for Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “representation of the at least one folder.” Petitioner is correct that a representation of a folder is not the folder itself, but (in keeping with the ordinary meaning of “representation”) is rather some sign or symbol that stands for the folder. Reply 2. This is confirmed by the explicit example of a representation of a folder in the ’635 application, illustrated in the portion of Figure 6D reproduced below (highlighted here for purposes of explanation). This portion of Figure 6D depicts representations of several folders, including the highlighted “Music” folder. The ’635 application specifically states: A folder content pane UI element 648d in navigation window UI element 646d is presented including representations of one or more data objects[11] at a location, identified in a path UI element 650d. A pointer UI element 652d illustrates a drag and drop operation of a “Music” folder represented in contents pane UI element 648d, dropped on edit window UI element 602d. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123 (emphasis added). The word “Music” in the above figure is a representation of a folder, not the folder itself. The actual folder is an entity in a file system that stores files (in the case of a “Music” folder, presumably MP3 or WAV files, or the like).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not pertinent to Petitioner’s proffered combination of Houston with Garcia as applied to the remaining challenged claims 17–21. As discussed further below, Petitioner relies on Garcia as supplementing Houston for details regarding the requirements of generating and sending an email with a link to a folder but without a file attachment, and for synchronizing folders and providing interfaces for display of shared folders. Pet. 26–27, 36–39, 57–60. For the challenged claims, Petitioner does not need to rely on the combination to modify Houston’s system such that, when an icon for a shared folder is created in Houston’s interface at an invited user’s client, the client does not store a file in the shared folder — 14 For this argument and others, Patent Owner cites for additional support portions of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/233,787. PO Resp. 18, 42, 46; Sur-Reply 9–12. This application is designated in Houston as a related application, and incorporated by reference therein. Ex. 1003, code (60), 1:6–10. We denied as untimely Patent Owner’s request to belatedly add this application to the record. Ex. 3002; Paper 39. Even accepting Patent Owner’s representations of the relied-on disclosures in that application, those disclosures are cumulative to Houston’s criticisms of systems that store documents remotely, and are irrelevant for the same reasons as discussed herein with respect to those Houston disclosures. that aspect of the Houston/Garcia combination is only relevant to claims 1–8, which have been disclaimed. Id. at 40–41; Ex. 2045.15 Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that Houston teaches away from combining with Garcia to delay storing a file when a folder is shared is not applicable to Petitioner’s challenges of claim 17–21, in light of our conclusion set forth above in Section III.C rejecting Patent Owner’s proposed construction of claim 17. The fact that the Houston system ensures the availability of synchronized local copies of files at each user’s local system and criticizes systems that store documents remotely, such as in Garcia, is irrelevant to those claims. On this record, there is nothing about that particular difference in the approaches of Houston and Garcia that would support a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from adopting Houston to take advantage of the teachings in Garcia regarding use of email and folder interfaces. In sum, Patent Owner focuses on a specific irrelevant detail of Houston regarding local storage of files, whereas Petitioner relies on other features of the combination of Houston and Garcia. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“To give substantial weight to objective indicia of nonobviousness such as commercial success, a proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Nexus is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[T]here is no nexus unless the evidence presented is ‘reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220 (quoting Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). A patentee is entitled to a presumption of nexus “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “[T]he patentee retains the burden of proving the degree to which evidence of secondary considerations tied to a product is attributable to a particular claimed invention.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378. The Federal Circuit has held that “if the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them, then a nexus is presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A finding that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; rather, “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Fox Factory, 994 F.3d at 1373–74 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 125, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “Ultimately, the fact finder must weigh the [objective indicia] evidence presented in the context of whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.” See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33, 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential) (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331–32 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“However, as Petitioner argues above, Houston discloses that a client can provide an email to the server to invite others to share a folder, and Houston explains that “attaching files [to emails is] cumbersome for many computer users.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 4, 1:41–42, 3:40–43, 7:50–51). From this, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious for the email invitation to notify how to access the folder, rather than sending the folder contents itself. Id. Petitioner further argues that the claim 17[d] requirement would have been obvious over the combination of Houston and Garcia given the disclosure in Garcia of sharing a folder by sending an email with a link to the folder, instead of an attachment. Id. at 27, 57 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 9, 11–12, 10:32–34, 10:38–40, 11:39–43, cl. 3). We are persuaded that the record supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding this claim requirement. Both Houston alone, and the combination of Houston and Garcia, teach or suggest sending an email with a link to a folder to be shared, rather than the folder contents. Only if the recipient clicks on the link are the contents of the folder shared. Ex. 1004, 11:29–31. The act of clicking on the link in the email after the email is received is the required “initiation of the communication” that must occur separately from the email itself, as required by claim 17[d]: “causing generation of at least one email [that] does not include a file attachment, for permitting avoidance of at least one file from being communicated to and stored at the second node until an initiation of the communication of the at least one file by a user of the second node is detected and the communication commences via at least one server that stores the at least one file” (emphasis added). It does not matter if Houston or Garcia automatically downloads local copies of files when a recipient clicks on the email link, because that is a separate step following the step of claim 17[d].” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 11,611,520 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520
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.