• Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00816 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–13, 16, 23, 25–27, and 29 are unpatentable as obvious over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. At the institution stage, we did not see a material difference in the proposals given that both parties also indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, and thus adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 11. We requested that the parties address during trial if either believed that the choice of one proposal over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis. Id. Neither party has done so. Accordingly, because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision was incorrect, and because neither party has challenged our finding, we maintain our adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Here, as in the Director’s example, Petitioner advanced a narrower construction of the dynamic limitations before the district court, which the district court declined to adopt. Pet. 10; Ex. 2015; Ex. 2025, 31–47. Instead, the district court adopted a “plain-and-ordinary meaning” construction, which Patent Owner proposed. PO Resp. 36–38; PO Sur-reply 10 n.2; Ex. 2015; Ex. 2025, 31–47. In the Petition, Petitioner proposed applying the plain and ordinary meaning construction that had already been preliminarily adopted by the district court. Compare Pet. (filed May 1, 2024) with Ex. 2015 (preliminarily adopting plain and ordinary meaning construction on March 25, 2024). Applying Revvo, we find that Petitioner had a sufficient reason for advancing the broader, court-adopted construction in this IPR. Thus, we give the dynamic limitation its plain-and-ordinary meaning, which is “adjusting during operation based—at least in part—on information gained during operation.”” slip op. at 14

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

    “Variable Bandpass Filter Block does not teach the recited “component” or “impedance” that is dynamically adjusted, and instead focus on why the low-pass and high-pass filter circuits do not teach the limitation, which is not Petitioner’s position. As stated above, we agree with Patent Owner’s plain reading of the claim language – i.e., that it “requires adjusting a variable impedance of a circuit or component thereof, while it is in the signal path.” See PO Resp. 49. However, Patent Owner’s reading of the claim does not persuasively address why the Variable Bandpass Filter Block does not teach the recited “circuit” or “component.” We have reviewed Dr. Larson’s cited testimony and disagree with Patent Owner that he provided “a well-supported opinion . . . as to why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not understand the entire bandpass box to be “a component,” “a circuit,” or “an impedance” in the claims.” Sur-reply 4 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 46–48, 71, 74–83). Dr. Larson testifies that the ’330 patent “teach[es] these adjustments [that dynamically change operating parameters] as changes effected in a single circuit block.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 46 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 8A, 9A, 8:20–25, 8:36–39, 9:36–59, 10:1–18 (emphasis added)). Dr. Larson does not provide further explanation as to what he means by a “single circuit block,” but relies on Figures 8A and 9A, which show a “function block,” and other disclosures referring to a “function block.” Id. There is no dispute that the recited “circuit” or “component” in the receiver signal path is referring to these “function blocks.” See Tr. 22:20–23:4. The ’330 patent states that Figure 8A, which includes function block 820, is “an embodiment of the present invention” that describes a “possible power saving technique[].” Ex. 1001, 3:30–33, 8:20–25. Similarly, Figure 9A, which includes function block 920, “illustrate[s] one of the possible power saving techniques.” Id. at 3:33–34. The ’330 patent describes that “[f]unctional block 820 . . . may be a filter, mixer, amplifier, or other circuit or circuits in a wireless transceiver or other electronic circuits or system.” Ex. 1001, 8:22–25 (emphasis added). Based on these disclosures, we are not convinced that Function Block 820 or 920 cannot include multiple filters in a Variable Bandpass Filter Block, or that Behbahani’s Variable Bandpass Filter Block does not teach the recited “circuit,” “component,” or “impedance.”” slip op. at 42

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

    “The absence of meaningful disclosure of the implementation details of the circuit in the ’330 patent suggests that the circuit implementation details Patent Owner argues about now would have been within the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. That is, Patent Owner did not provide in its own specification “the type of detail [it] now argues is necessary in prior art references,” which permits a “finding that one skilled in the art would have known how to implement the features of the references and would have concluded that the reference disclosures would have been enabling.” In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1994). When a patent specification does not “specifically describe[]” any “equipment or techniques to be used,” it may be deduced “that all of the equipment and technical knowledge required to perform the claimed method” is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 1407 (CCPA 1973); see also Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, 870 F.3d 1306, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (without proof to the contrary, when there is no focus on a disputed claim limitation in the specification, the limitation is merely “an observed result of an old process”). To that end, Petitioner provides persuasive testimony from Dr. Abidi that signal strength measurement circuits were known in the art, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to implement a known technique for measuring signal strength, which is not disputed by Patent Owner. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 180– 181; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 12–16; see Pet. Reply 24–26; Pet. 60–62. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Behbahani’s disclosure at least suggests circuitry for performing such a determination of signal strength. See Pet. Reply 24 (citing Pet. 60–61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–98, 179–181). Petitioner further argues that Tan “provides an example of circuitry used to detect signals at various points in the low-pass filter signal path as a means of implementing a prefilter automatic gain control.” Pet. 60–61 (citing Ex. 1006, 481); Ex. 1003 ¶ 180. The example in Tan is a peak detector circuit. Pet. 61; Ex. 1003 ¶ 180; Ex. 1006, Fig. 8. Dr. Abidi testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Tan’s signal strength measurement circuitry to measure nodes AI and AO. Ex. 1003 ¶ 180. In response to Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how to use Tan’s peak detector in Behbahani (PO Resp. 70), Dr. Abidi provides testimony explaining how Tan’s peak detector circuit provides a measure of the signal strength, which we find persuasive, and is unrebutted by Patent Owner. Ex. 1042 ¶ 15.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,010,330 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,010,330
• Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00817 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan; Patent Owner’s motion to strike is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), a reply “may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” We agree with Petitioner, for the reasons stated in the Opposition, that the arguments and declaration testimony is responsive to arguments raised in the Patent Owner Response. See Opp Mot. 7–11 (explaining the positions taken in the Petition, Patent Owner’s arguments in Response, and the arguments presented in Reply); Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1008– 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner does not provide a new theory of unpatentability; rather, Petitioner responds and elaborates on the theory presented in the Petition to explain why Patent Owner’s arguments are incorrect. E.g., Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1081–82 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reasoning that rebuttal evidence should be responsive such that it is offered “to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the evidence of the adverse party”). “[T]he introduction of new evidence in the course of the trial is to be expected in [IPR] trial proceedings” and permissible “as long as the opposing party is given notice of the evidence and an opportunity to respond to it.” Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P’ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. At the institution stage, we did not see a material difference in the proposals given that both parties also indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, and thus adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 11. We requested that the parties address during trial if either believed that the choice of one proposal over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis. Id. Neither party has done so. Accordingly, because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision was incorrect, and because neither party has challenged our finding, we maintain our adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Thus, the parties do not dispute the meaning of “signal path,” and we adopt the district court’s construction of plain and ordinary meaning, as agreed by the parties. See PO Resp. 40–41; Pet. 9; Ex. 2025, 14. The dispute concerns the application of this and the surrounding claim language (i.e., “in the receiver signal path”) to the disclosures in Behbahani. See PO Resp. 40–42. Therefore, we will provide further discussion in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding Behbahani below. However, we agree with Patent Owner’s plain reading of the claim language in limitation 1(e) and the corresponding limitations in independent claims 3, 5, 7, and 8 – i.e., that “[t]he plain language requires adjusting a bias current, or a bias current and an impedance, in a circuit, while it is in the signal path.” See PO Resp. 48. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 20

  • Settled expectationsNot reached

    “Owner’s] settled expectations in long-standing patent rights, and Office policies and efficiency.” Id.; see id. at 25–26. Patent Owner’s arguments essentially reassert the arguments made in the Preliminary Response that inter partes review should be discretionarily denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). In the Institution Decision, we were not persuaded by these arguments. Inst. Dec. 15–22. Patent Owner argues that in Ecto World, LLC v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2024-01280, Paper 13 (PTAB May 19, 2025) (§ A precedential) supports denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Sur-reply 25. However, Ecto World was designated precedential on May 19, 2025, and our Standard Operating Procedure 2 provides that “[a] precedential decision is binding Board authority in subsequent matters involving similar facts or issues.” SOP2, 7 (emphasis added). Therefore, re-evaluation under Ecto World does not appear to be appropriate under the circumstances here. Patent Owner also argues that proceedings can be properly dismissed post-institution in the Director’s discretion. Sur-reply 26. In support, Patent Owner cites to Hulu LLV v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLC, IPR2024- 01252, Paper 17, at 3 (PTAB April 17, 2025). Id. However, in Hulu, the patent owner timely sought Director Review after the institution decision, and upon Director Review, the institution decision was vacated and denied. IPR2024-01252, Papers 16, 19, 27. By contrast, here, Patent Owner raised this issue for the first time in the Sur-reply (filed August 5, 2025, nearly three months after Ecto World was designated precedential), approximately three weeks prior to oral argument. Patent Owner also did not file a motion to terminate the proceeding. Although we recognize that “that the Board has the inherent authority to reconsider institution decisions (beyond the regulatory time for a patentee’s entitlement to seek reconsideration),” Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, 840 F. App’x 598, 598–99 (Fed. Cir. 2021), we decline to do so at this late stage in the proceeding.” slip op. at 63

  Patent outcomesUS 10,129,825 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,129,825
• Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00820 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–6, and 8–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Behbahani and Tan; Patent Owner’s motion to strike is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), a reply “may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” We agree with Petitioner, for the reasons stated in the Opposition, that the arguments and declaration testimony are responsive to arguments raised in the Patent Owner Response. See Opp Mot. 7–10 (explaining the positions taken in the Petition, Patent Owner’s arguments in Response, and the arguments presented in Reply); Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1008– 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner does not provide a new theory of unpatentability; instead, Petitioner appropriately responds and elaborates on the theory presented in the Petition to explain why Patent Owner’s arguments are incorrect. See, e.g., Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1081–82 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reasoning that rebuttal evidence should be responsive such that it is offered “to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the evidence of the adverse party”). “[T]he introduction of new evidence in the course of the trial is to be expected in [IPR] trial proceedings” and is permissible “as long as the opposing party is given notice of the evidence and an opportunity to respond to it.” Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P’ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. At the institution stage, we did not see a material difference in the proposals given that both parties also indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, and we thus adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. See Inst. Dec. 14. We requested that the parties address during trial if either believed that the choice of one proposal over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis. Id. Neither party has done so. Accordingly, because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision was incorrect, and because neither party has challenged our finding, we maintain our adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Revvo Techs., Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Techs., Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 at 3–5 (Director Nov. 3, 2025) (precedential), addressing situations where a petitioner takes different claim construction positions before the Board and a district court. In Revvo, the petitioner advanced its own proposed claim construction in a related district court litigation but adopted in the IPR a different proposed construction, which was advanced by the patent owner in the district court litigation. Revvo at 2. The Director acknowledged that “a petitioner is not necessarily precluded from arguing different claim construction positions before a district court and the Board,” but that if the petitioner does so, it “should explain sufficiently why the different positions are warranted.” Id. at 5. “For example,” the Director explained, “if a party advances a narrow construction in the district court and the district court declines to adopt the narrow construction, the party would have sufficient reason for advancing the broader, court-adopted construction in a proceeding before the Board.” Id. Here, as in the Director’s example, Petitioner advanced a narrower construction of “signal path” before the district court, which the district court declined to adopt. See Pet. 9; Ex. 2015. Instead, the district court adopted a “plain-and-ordinary meaning” construction, which Patent Owner proposed. See PO Resp. 38, 41; Ex. 2015; Ex. 2025, 5–14. In the Petition, Petitioner proposed applying the plain and ordinary meaning constructions that had already been preliminarily adopted by the district court. Compare Pet. (filed May 1, 2024) with Ex. 2015 (preliminarily adopting plain and ordinary meaning construction on March 25, 2024). Applying Revvo, we find that Petitioner had a sufficient reason for advancing the broader, courtadopted construction in this IPR. Thus, the parties do not dispute the meanings of “signal path,” and we adopt the district court’s construction of plain and ordinary meaning, as agreed by the parties. The “signal path” dispute concerns the application of this and the surrounding claim language (i.e., “in the receiver signal path”) to the disclosures in Behbahani. See PO Resp. 41–43. Therefore, we will provide further discussion in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding Behbahani below. However, we agree with Patent Owner that “plain language [of the claims] requires adjusting the impedance (or bias) of a circuit or component in the signal path.” PO Resp. 49. The parties also address the meaning of the terms “dynamically increasing/decreasing,” which Petitioner refers to as the “dynamic limitation.” See Pet. 9; PO Resp. 37–41. Petitioner proposes that the Board accept Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which was adopted by the district court in the related litigation, both preliminarily and following the Markman hearing. See Pet. 9–10; Ex. 2015, 2–3; Ex. 2025, 40. At Institution, we adopted the district court’s construction, that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning which is “varying during operation based, at least in part, on information gained during operation,”4 because there was no dispute between the parties. See Inst. Dec. 16. We continue to do so for purposes of this Decision, for the same reasons as set forth above. That is, applying Revvo, we find that Petitioner had a sufficient reason for advancing the broader, court-adopted construction in this IPR.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Petitioner further argues that Tan “provides an example of circuitry used to detect signals at various points in the low-pass filter signal path as a means of implementing a prefilter automatic gain control.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1006, 481); Ex. 1003 ¶ 85. The example in Tan is a peak detector circuit. See Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 85; Ex. 1006, Fig. 8. Dr. Abidi testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Tan’s signal strength measurement circuitry to measure nodes AI and AO, as well as to use comparable circuity to measure nodes DI and DO. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–90. In response to Patent Owner’s argument that it is not possible to measure signal strength with Tan’s peak detectors (see PO Resp. 65–68), Dr. Abidi provides testimony explaining how Tan’s peak detector circuit provides a measure of the signal strength, which we find persuasive, and which is unrebutted by Patent Owner. See Ex. 1042 ¶ 15.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 11,638,210 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,638,210
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2023-01055 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claim 12 unpatentable over Grotmol and Hickman and denied the motion to amend because proposed substitute claims 21–29 were unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Director Review and remanding for further proceedings. Paper 49 (“Acting Director’s Decision” or “DR Dec.”). That Decision states agreement “that the Board’s analysis of claim 12 did not make separate factual findings.” DR Dec. 2. The Decision instructs us on remand “to consider Patent Owner’s arguments as to claim 12 and as to proposed substitute claim 21” and “[r]egardless of the Board’s disposition on remand, the Board should explain more fully its findings as to claim 12 and proposed substitute claim 21.” Id.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Written Decision regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally DR Req. Upon consideration of the full record including the arguments in Patent Owner’s Request for Director Review, we maintain that determination here. More specifically, considering the subject matter of the ’344 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for an ordinary level of skill, except we decline to adopt “at least” as that language is vague and open-ended. See 2024 Final Dec. 10–11. Accordingly, with that exception, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

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

    “the differences as compared to claim 1, including those findings and determinations set forth in a section of the 2024 Final Written Decision titled “Overview—Claims 6, 11, and 12” (id. at 65–67) and in the sections titled “Claim 12” and “Conclusion—Claims 6, 11, and 12” (id. at 83–86). Further, based on the complete record now before us, including Patent Owner’s Request for Director Review, for the reasons given in our 2024 Final Written Decision and our additional reasons given herein, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Grotmol and Hickman combination teaches the limitations of claim 12.” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Director Review and remanding for further proceedings. Paper 49 (“Acting Director’s Decision” or “DR Dec.”). That Decision states agreement “that the Board’s analysis of claim 12 did not make separate factual findings.” DR Dec. 2. The Decision instructs us on remand “to consider Patent Owner’s arguments as to claim 12 and as to proposed substitute claim 21” and “[r]egardless of the Board’s disposition on remand, the Board should explain more fully its findings as to claim 12 and proposed substitute claim 21.” Id.” slip op. at 3

  Patent outcomesUS 11,238,344 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,238,344
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Wipqtus Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00023 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Chatterjee and Corbridge; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “testimony, we agree with Petitioner that Chatterjee teaches claim 22’s limitation. See Pet. 58–59; Opp. 17, 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121, 178–179; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 68, 94; supra § III.D.4(a). Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chatterjee, Corbridge, and Cook in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra §§ III.D.3(l)(iii), IV.C.4(b)(v).c. Hence, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claim 22 is unpatentable under § 103 because the claim would have been obvious over Chatterjee, Corbridge, and Cook. V. CONCLUSION Based on the evidence presented with the Petition, the evidence introduced during the trial, and the parties’ respective arguments, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5, 7, and 9 in the ’339 patent are unpatentable under § 103 because the claims would have been obvious over Chatterjee and Corbridge.12” slip op. at 165

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

    “testimony, we agree with Petitioner that Chatterjee teaches claim 22’s limitation. See Pet. 58–59; Opp. 17, 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121, 178–179; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 68, 94; supra § III.D.4(a). Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chatterjee, Corbridge, and Cook in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra §§ III.D.3(l)(iii), IV.C.4(b)(v).c. Hence, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claim 22 is unpatentable under § 103 because the claim would have been obvious over Chatterjee, Corbridge, and Cook.” slip op. at 165

  Patent outcomesUS 10,038,339 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,038,339
• Zebra Technologies Corporation v. Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01377 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10–12, and 14–22 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 12, and 14–22 as anticipated by Garber; claims 10 and 11 as obvious over Garber and Andersen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “3. The Alleged Anticipation of Claim 1 a. A portable interrogator, comprising: Petitioner contends that the preamble is not limiting, but, to the extent that it is, Garber discloses a portable interrogator. Pet. 12–13 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1005, 14:59–62, 15:63–65). Petitioner asserts that Garber discloses a portable interrogator in the form of a hand-held RFID device, and points to, inter alia, Garber’s description of Figure 4 as depicting “a block diagram of an RFID interrogation system interacting with an RFID tag.” Id. at 12 (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:46–47) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not raise any arguments regarding this contention. b. an antenna configured to receive a first signal from a first object; Petitioner contends that Garber discloses a hand-held RFID device having an antenna for the RFID reader. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1005, 15:43– 46, 16:11–13, Fig. 13; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75–78). Petitioner further contends that Garber’s Figure 13 depicts the antenna receiving an RFID signal from a tag attached to a library book. Id. at 13. Petitioner additionally contends that Garber discloses the identification, by the RFID device, of multiple items via code signals 202, thus disclosing an antenna configured to receive a first signal from a first object. Id. at 14. Petitioner notes that Garber states, “[t]he hand-held RFID device . . . is capable of identifying multiple items that are within the range of the device.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 14:40–45) (emphasis and alterations in original). Petitioner further asserts that “Garber also teaches that ‘if items used in the library are first placed on a book cart [in close proximity without obstructions], for example, the hand-held device could make a single pass by the items on the cart to record them.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 18:25–27) (emphasis and alterations in original). Patent Owner does not raise any arguments regarding these contentions. c. a control and processing subsystem configured to discern a presence of said first object from said first signal; and Petitioner contends that: Garber discloses a control and processing subsystem (e.g., the processor in the hand-held RFID device/computer 108) configured to discern a presence of (e.g., decoding response from tags to identify tagged item) said first object (e.g., the RFID tags) from said first signal (e.g., signals produced by tags/response code signal 202). Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–84); see also id. at 14–17. Patent Owner does not raise any arguments regarding this contention.” slip op. at 38

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

    “4. Motivation to Combine Garber and Andersen Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen for several reasons. Pet. 49, 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 187–196). First, Petitioner argues that Garber and Andersen are analogous art to the ’293 patent “because they are in the same field of endeavor—namely, interrogation systems.” Id. at 49. Specifically, Petitioner argues that Garber and Andersen are analogous to the ’293 patent “because they are reasonably pertinent to the technical problem allegedly addressed by the claimed invention.” Id. Petitioner contends that “[t]he ’293 Patent identifies deficiencies in the prior art as including [inter alia] a requirement ‘that each device be interrogated separately’ (versus ‘[t]he ability to interrogate a plurality of closely spaced tags simultaneously’).” Id. at 49–50 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:16–25, 5:56–6:15, 6:40–46) (third alteration in original). According to Petitioner, Garber discloses, among other things, that “‘[a]nother benefit’ of the RFID device as ‘the ability to process multiple items at one time’ where ‘conventional devices having only optical bar code scanners can process only a single item . . . at one time.’” Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1005, 13:25–30, 13:30–36 (“greatly reduc[ing] the time required for library staff to process multiple items.”)) (alterations in original). Petitioner argues that “Andersen is also analogous because it teaches ‘a system for tracking inventory having RFID components” and is designed to remedy the deficiencies of prior art inventory tracking systems using bar codes, which can be torn, destroyed, or hidden from view. Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:8–10, 1:58–2:2, 2:4–5). Additionally, according to Petitioner, Andersen is intended to address multipath errors and teaches that one way to refine radio signals received by RFID tags is by using a Kalman filter. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36). Petitioner also argus that Andersen “provides ample motivation to add a Kalman filter to Garber’s hand-held device” to provide “correction of multi scanned signal / multipath errors.” Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36, 12:39–41). “As such,” Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious “to modify Garber’s handheld device, which is used inside a library where shelves and other obstacles can result in multipath errors, to use Andersen’s Kalman filter to address these errors.” Id. Additionally, according to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill “could have combined Andersen’s Kalman Filter with Garber’s hand-held device using known methods, and such a filter would merely perform the same function—resolving errors to improve detection accuracy, which is entirely predictable.” Id. at 51–52. Finally, Petitioner contends, one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because “[t]he interrogator components described in Garber and Andersen were well-known at the time,” and the modification of Garber’s interrogator to include Andersen’s Kalman filter would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill. Id. at 52. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Garber and Andersen is insufficient. PO Resp. 29–32; PO Sur-reply 23. First, Patent Owner argues that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight because Petitioner did not explain why one of ordinary skill would have combined Garber and Andersen “to teach a control and processing unit employing an adaptive integrated filter or multiscan, coherent signal processing.” PO Resp. 31. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen because “Andersen teaches the use of filters to correct multipath signal errors arising from the transmission of a single signal,” while the ’293 patent “teaches the use of filters to process multiple diverse inputs with a signal representing an RFID object to discern the presence of that object and teaches multiscan, coherent signal processing to coordinate the processing of a plurality of signals.” Id. “In either case,” Patent Owner contends, “the problems solved by the ’293 Patent involve multiple signals and not the single signal problem addressed by Andersen.” Id.” slip op. at 68

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

    “5. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Patent Owner asserts that there is evidence of long felt but unresolved need that constitutes objective indicia of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 32–33; see PO Sur-reply 24 (“others in the field had attempted and failed to solve the problems addressed by the ‘293 Patent”). Patent Owner also makes certain assertions regarding the adoption and possible acquisition of its technology. PO Resp. 34; see also PO Sur-reply 24 (referring to “industry acceptance of Lone Star’s inventions”). Petitioner characterizes these latter assertions as allegations of industry praise and commercial success. Pet. Reply 24. In support of its objective indicia arguments, Patent Owner relies solely on the declaration of named-inventor John Volpi (Ex. 2018). See PO Resp. 32. Petitioner argues that there is no nexus to the claimed invention because Patent Owner “has not identified the merits of the claimed invention or any product that embodies the claimed features or is coextensive with them.” Pet. Reply 23–24. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner “has not established industry praise or commercial success, let alone a nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Id. at 24. As the Federal Circuit has explained: For objective evidence of secondary considerations to be relevant, there must be a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the objective evidence. See In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A showing of nexus can be made in two ways: (1) via a presumption of nexus, or (2) via a showing that the evidence is a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention. A patent owner is entitled to a presumption of nexus when it shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product that “embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). . . . However, even absent a presumption of nexus, “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, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).” slip op. at 72

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “exhibits for use at oral argument. Paper 31 (Petitioner’s objections); Paper 33 (Patent Owner’s objections). Petitioner contends that certain of Patent Owner’s demonstrative exhibit slides contain new argument not previously made in any paper and evidence not previously asserted or relied on in any paper. See Paper 31. Patent Owner similarly contends that certain of Petitioner’s demonstrative exhibit slides contain new argument and evidence not previously referenced or relied on. See Paper 33. The parties’ demonstrative exhibits are not evidence and we do not rely on them herein. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 84 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf (explaining that demonstratives exhibits are merely “aids to oral argument and not evidence” and therefore “the Board has not found that such objections are helpful in many cases”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the parties’ objections.” slip op. at 79

  Patent outcomesUS 10,482,293 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,482,293
• Zebra Technologies Corporation v. Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01376 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–20 are unpatentable: the Board found the asserted Garber-based anticipation and obviousness grounds established, while not reaching three alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Examiner’s prior art references, in order to read an RFID tag, required each tag to be isolated from others, either by distance or through the use of a strategically placed RF shield. The applicant distinguished the claimed subject matter over those relatively unsophisticated RFID readers (that could only read one tag at a time) by amending the claims to recite, by the inclusion of “close proximity” and “unshielded,” a more sophisticated interrogator that did not need to use spacing or shielding. This is consistent with the background section of the ’717 patent stating that RFID systems at the time of the patent were better than relatively unsophisticated bar code systems. See Ex. 1001, 4:6–22; see also PO Resp. 17–18 (Patent Owner quoting the same after re-stating the Board’s preliminary construction and conceding that “[t]he Board conclusion here is supported by the plain language of the ‘717 Patent.”). Specifically, the ’717 patent explains that “[a]n important attribute of RFID interrogation systems is that a number of tags can be interrogated simultaneously stemming from the signal processing,” and that “[a] related and desirable attribute is that there is not typically a minimum separation required between the tags.” Ex. 1001, 4:6– 12. “Most other identification systems, such as systems employing bar codes, usually impose that each device be interrogated separately.” Id. at 4:17–19.” slip op. at 23

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “means-plus-function limitation governed by 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6 and, accordingly, is limited to corresponding structure (and equivalents) disclosed” slip op. at 26

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “3. The Alleged Anticipation and Obviousness of Claim 1” slip op. at 39

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

    “4. Motivation to Combine Garber and Andersen Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Petitioner argues that one of” slip op. at 84

  Patent outcomesUS 9,996,717 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,996,717
• Zebra Technologies Corp. v. Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01375 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4, 6–7, 10–19, 21, and 22 unpatentable, finding the asserted Garber grounds proven and not reaching the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “4. Motivation to Combine Garber and Andersen Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen for several reasons. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 244–254). First, Petitioner argues that “Garber and Andersen are analogous art to the ’182 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor—namely, interrogation systems.” Id. Specifically, Petitioner relies on its arguments in Ground 2 that “Garber is analogous to the ’182 patent because it is reasonably pertinent to the technical problem allegedly addressed by the claimed invention.” Id. at 60–61; see id. at 52–53. Petitioner argues that “Andersen is also analogous because it teaches ‘a system for tracking inventory having RFID components” and is designed to remedy the deficiencies of prior art inventory tracking systems using bar codes, which can be torn, destroyed, or hidden from view. Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:8–10, 1:58–2:2, 2:4–5). Additionally, according to Petitioner, Andersen is intended to address multipath errors and teaches that one way to refine radio signals received by RFID tags is by using a Kalman filter. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36). Petitioner also argus that Andersen “provides ample motivation to add a Kalman filter to Garber’s hand-held device” to provide “correction of multi scanned signal / multipath errors.” Pet. 61–62 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36, 12:39–41). “As such,” Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious “to modify Garber’s handheld device, which is used inside a library where shelves and other obstacles can result in multipath errors, to use Andersen’s Kalman filter to address these errors.” Id. at 62. Additionally, according to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill “could have combined Andersen’s Kalman filter with Garber’s hand- held device using known methods, and such a filter would merely perform the same function—resolving errors to improve detection accuracy, which is entirely predictable.” Id. Finally, Petitioner contends, one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because “[t]he interrogator components described in Garber and Andersen were well-known at the time,” and the modification of Garber’s interrogator to include Andersen’s Kalman filter would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill. Id. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Garber and Andersen is insufficient. PO Resp. 46–49; PO Sur-reply 27. First, Patent Owner argues that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight because Petitioner did not explain why one of ordinary skill would have combined Garber and Andersen “to teach a control and processing unit employing an adaptive integrated filter or multiscan, coherent signal processing.” PO Resp. 48. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen because “Andersen teaches the use of filters to correct multipath signal errors arising from the transmission of a single signal,” while the ’182 patent “teaches the use of filters to process multiple diverse inputs with a signal representing an RFID object to discern the presence of that object and teaches multiscan, coherent signal processing to coordinate the processing of a plurality of signals.” Id. “In either case,” Patent Owner contends, “the problems solved by the ’182 [p]atent involve multiple signals, not the single signal problem addressed by Andersen.” Id. Petitioner responds that the references themselves provide explicit” slip op. at 83

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “3. Analysis of Independent Claim 1 a) 1[pre]: “[an] interrogator, comprising:” Petitioner argues that, to the extent the preamble is limiting, Garber discloses it. Pet. 16. Petitioner points to Garber’s disclosure that “[a] handheld RFID device can interrogate and identify RFID-tagged items,” and that the hand-held RFID device “preferably includes an RFID reader and writer.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 14:49–62, 15:63–65) (emphasis omitted). “Furthermore,” Petitioner contends, “Figure 4 of Garber discloses ‘a block diagram of an RFID interrogation system interacting with an RFID tag,’” and RFID tags “respond to requests for information by the interrogator.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 3:46–47, 5:44–45). Patent Owner does not present arguments specifically directed to the preamble of claim 1. See PO Resp. Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner’s cited evidence sufficiently supports its contentions regarding the preamble.8” slip op. at 38

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

    “4. Motivation to Combine Garber and Andersen Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen for several reasons. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 244–254). First, Petitioner argues that “Garber and Andersen are analogous art to the ’182 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor—namely, interrogation systems.” Id. Specifically, Petitioner relies on its arguments in Ground 2 that “Garber is analogous to the ’182 patent because it is reasonably pertinent to the technical problem allegedly addressed by the claimed invention.” Id. at 60–61; see id. at 52–53. Petitioner argues that “Andersen is also analogous because it teaches ‘a system for tracking inventory having RFID components” and is designed to remedy the deficiencies of prior art inventory tracking systems using bar codes, which can be torn, destroyed, or hidden from view. Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:8–10, 1:58–2:2, 2:4–5). Additionally, according to Petitioner, Andersen is intended to address multipath errors and teaches that one way to refine radio signals received by RFID tags is by using a Kalman filter. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36). Petitioner also argus that Andersen “provides ample motivation to add a Kalman filter to Garber’s hand-held device” to provide “correction of multi scanned signal / multipath errors.” Pet. 61–62 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36, 12:39–41). “As such,” Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious “to modify Garber’s handheld device, which is used inside a library where shelves and other obstacles can result in multipath errors, to use Andersen’s Kalman filter to address these errors.” Id. at 62. Additionally, according to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill “could have combined Andersen’s Kalman filter with Garber’s hand- held device using known methods, and such a filter would merely perform the same function—resolving errors to improve detection accuracy, which is entirely predictable.” Id. Finally, Petitioner contends, one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because “[t]he interrogator components described in Garber and Andersen were well-known at the time,” and the modification of Garber’s interrogator to include Andersen’s Kalman filter would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill. Id. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Garber and Andersen is insufficient. PO Resp. 46–49; PO Sur-reply 27. First, Patent Owner argues that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight because Petitioner did not explain why one of ordinary skill would have combined Garber and Andersen “to teach a control and processing unit employing an adaptive integrated filter or multiscan, coherent signal processing.” PO Resp. 48. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen because “Andersen teaches the use of filters to correct multipath signal errors arising from the transmission of a single signal,” while the ’182 patent “teaches the use of filters to process multiple diverse inputs with a signal representing an RFID object to discern the presence of that object and teaches multiscan, coherent signal processing to coordinate the processing of a plurality of signals.” Id. “In either case,” Patent Owner contends, “the problems solved by the ’182 [p]atent involve multiple signals, not the single signal problem addressed by Andersen.” Id. Petitioner responds that the references themselves provide explicit” slip op. at 83

  • ExcludeDenied

    “rely on them herein. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 84 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf (explaining that demonstratives exhibits are merely “aids to oral argument and not evidence” and therefore “the Board has not found that such objections are helpful in many cases”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the parties’ objections.” slip op. at 88

  Patent outcomesUS 9,646,182 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,646,182
• Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2023 · IPR2022-00068 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board cancelled original claims 6, 8–10, 14, and 18 and denied the motion to amend, finding proposed substitute claims 20–25 obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “claims must meet the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and the procedural requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. See Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4–8. As a predicate to a motion to amend, Patent Owner must demonstrate: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure; (3) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; and (4) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” slip op. at 9

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

    “For the partial deletion requirement of claim 20, we agree that incorporating Feng’s teaching regarding deletion of “useless” data into the Aerts/Eberspächer combination would have led one of ordinary skill to cause deletion of the second set of data, but not the first set, after a predetermined interval when no calls were made. The record supports that the first set of data is useful even during period when no calls are made, in contrast to the second set of data. Olivier 3rd Decl. ¶ 58; Sur-Reply 10. Accordingly, given that Aerts teaches the desirability of avoiding storing information that is not needed, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to balance the possibility of needlessly storing the second set of data versus incurring additional transmission overhead if the second set of data is again needed — striking a balance between those opposing interests by deleting the data after a preset interval of inactivity. Sur-Reply 10–11 (citing Olivier 3rd Decl. ¶ 59). Providing for deletion of the second set of data only after such “precondition” is fulfilled (the expiration of a timer), alleviates the concern of prematurely deleting data. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combination of Aerts, Eberspächer, and Feng, and the preponderance of the evidence establishes that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make that combination. In addition, having considered both the evidence of obviousness and Patent Owner’s submitted evidence of nonobviousness, and weighed the entirety of the evidence, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claim 20 would have been obvious over the combination of Aerts, Eberspächer, and Feng.” slip op. at 23

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

    “For this Decision, we construe this claim limitation in accord with the court’s construction in the Texas case. As set forth by Petitioner and its declarant, and as explained in the claim construction order in the Texas case, “enabling establishing a communication session” is described in the ’426 specification as when an “attach control node” receives sufficient subscriber data to achieve a “full attach state.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:59, 3:55–62, 4:15–22, 8:17–20, 8:33–36, 9:14–15, 9:30–10:8, 10:32–36, 10:40–44, 13:14–17); Olivier Decl. ¶¶ 107–108; Ex. 1041, 77–82.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “[A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’426 Patent (July 15th, 2013) would have had a degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, with at least three years of relevant industry or research experience, including designing or implementing cellular systems. A POSITA would also have familiarity with the wireless standards and protocols relating to subscriber management. This definition is approximate, and more education may substitute for industry experience or vice versa. Olivier Decl. ¶ 41. Patent Owner does not offer an alternative in its Revised Non-Contingent Motion to Amend. See generally Motion; Reply. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 9,549,426 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,549,426
• Intel Corporation / Opensky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00366 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over the Shaffer-based and Chen-based grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We do not read the specification’s disclosure of alternative embodiments as establishing that the claimed “request” mandates deciding whether to act on the request. Nothing in the specification describes a request that itself requires independent assessment. Stated otherwise, although any given “request” could be evaluated to determine what, if any, action to take in response, any such evaluation does not depend on the nature of the request. The claims do not include language restricting how a request is processed, but instead read on systems or methods in which a certain 7 As noted, Patent Owner hinges its arguments on construing “request.” See Tr. 50:16–18. Independent claim 14’s programmable clock controller includes instructions to perform a method that, like claim 1’s method, receives the request provided by the first master device and provides the claimed outputs without reciting any intervening assessment of the request. Independent claim 18 similarly recites that a clock controller coupled to an arbiter is configured to adjust a variable clock frequency of the bus in response to receiving the request from the first master device, without reciting any intervening assessment of the request. specification is consistent with a system that makes no independent assessment of a request. The example states that “[t]he clock controller can output a variable clock frequency that varies in response to one or more inputs from the at least one master device.” Id. at 2:38–40. This exemplary embodiment supports Petitioner’s contention that we should not construe “request” as requiring independent assessment before acting on the request.” slip op. at 8

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

    “While Chen does not expressly disclose power savings, the record supports a finding that skilled artisans would have understood power savings as an important consideration. See Ex. 1056, 386:2–4 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Conte, testifying in the litigation that “power savings in designing a processor” is “extremely important”). Indeed, Terrell discloses the minimum frequency that allows the processing elements to function correctly while using the least amount of power.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 5. We conclude therefore that the prospect of achieving power savings would have motivated skilled artisans to operate Chen’s system at a reduced clock frequency when not required by performance demands. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“‘[U]niversal’ motivations known in a particular field to improve technology provide ‘a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’” (quoting Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797–99 (Fed. Cir. 2021))). Patent Owner contends that Chen and Terrell have opposite goals because Chen focuses on increasing frequency for performance while Terrell focuses on reducing frequency for power savings. PO Resp. 32–37. Petitioner, however, explains how the teachings would work together to “select a clock frequency that increases the devices’ frequency only when needed, to reduce power consumption, even if the devices can use higher speeds.” Pet. 45. Such a combination is consistent with Chen’s teachings of increasing frequency for certain operations, and also consistent with Terrell’s teachings of reducing frequency when possible. In this way, we credit Dr. Jacob’s testimony that the combination would have balanced “the inherent trade-off between highest performance at the highest cost, and lower (but perhaps still acceptable) performance at a lower cost.” Ex. 1055 ¶ 112. Thus, the combined system Petitioner asserts would have been able to operate at reduced frequency (conserving power) in low-activity times and increased frequency when the system required higher performance. Id. ¶ 117. performance demand, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the combination defeats Chen’s intended purpose. See PO Resp. 37–42. Patent Owner’s interpretation, that Chen requires maximum speed at all times, is implausible in light of Terrell’s recognition that systems may spend time in an idle state (Ex. 1004 ¶ 54), and Chen’s disclosure of operating devices below their maximum speed (Ex. 1003, 3:42–43 (“I/O devices which normally operate at 66 M[H]z can be operated at 50 M[H]z.”)). We conclude that Chen’s “principle of operation and stated goal” are preserved by the asserted combination, in which bus speed is reduced when performance needs allow and then increased to the limit of a device’s capabilities when required.” slip op. at 32

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

    “The IEEE article cited by Patent Owner is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate the requisite nexus. Intel’s employee testified that it takes years and thousands of engineers to build a new generation of processors because such devices include thousands of features and enhancements. Ex. 1058, 811:2–12. Petitioner notes that Patent Owner accused only the Speed Shift feature of infringing the ’759 patent and that Patent Owner’s damages expert, Dr. Sullivan, “conceded that many of the thousands of other features ‘have nothing to do with what [Patent Owner] accuses.’” Pet. Reply 23 (quoting Ex. 1057, 690:19–691:24). Petitioner additionally points out that, in a subsequent trial, Patent Owner’s expert agreed that Intel would have sold the accused products regardless of the alleged infringement. Id. (citing Ex. 1061, 771:13–22 (testifying that Intel would have made the same sales, even if the jury found the products not to infringe)). The record before us does not show that Intel’s product or products underlying the infringement verdict are coextensive with “the invention disclosed and claimed.” See Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373, 1377; see Facebook, Inc. v. Express Mobile Inc., IPR2021-01457 Paper 38 at 76–80 (PTAB March 14, 2023) (concluding an infringement verdict was insufficient to establish nexus). Rather, the record shows that the accused products contained many features beyond those relevant to the ’749 patent. Ex. 1057, 690:19–691:24; Ex. 1058, 815:16–816:21. information that would allow us to weigh the extent of Intel’s commercial success based on the alleged sales of products infringing the claimed invention. In particular, the record does not reflect whether the infringing device represented an increase in market share over a prior, noninfringing device or any other aspect that would allow us to place the verdict’s amount in context. See, e.g., In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“An important component of the commercial success inquiry in the present case is determining whether Applied had a significant market share.”). On this record we do not find evidence of commercial success sufficient for purposes of establishing non-obviousness.” slip op. at 25

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Petitioner and deny Patent Owner’s motion because Dr. Jacob’s cross-examination and his confirmation of the declarations in this proceeding address Patent Owner’s hearsay concern.11 IPR testimony is 10 Petitioner does not dispute that Dr. Jacob’s Original Declarations are offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” PO Mtn. Exclude 3; Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2). 11 Patent Owner’s argument that OpenSky did not contact Dr. Jacob before filing its Petition with Dr. Jacob’s Declarations is not persuasive in light of his willingness to testify in this proceeding. PO Mtn. Exclude 6–10. not allow an expert to “testify” in person at an IPR hearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 (a)–(b)(1); 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5); 35 U.S.C. § 23. Testimony is instead submitted as evidence in the form of affidavits and deposition transcripts. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.53, 42.63. Our rules, therefore, contemplate that declarants in IPRs do not “testify” in the traditional sense of giving live testimony in a courtroom. As other Board decisions have noted, “[w]ithout exception, the Board accepts the filing of sworn witness declarations in lieu of live testimony in administrative patent trials.” Grünenthal Gmbh v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC, PGR2018-00062, Paper 32 at 15 (PTAB Oct. 29, 2019). Our procedures adopt that practice for its efficiency and ensure fairness by allowing cross-examination. See id.; 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(ii). Dr. Jacob has made himself available for cross-examination and confirmed that the declarations express his opinions here, in this proceeding. Thus, in these respects, the Original Declarations are no different than the other testimony relied on by the parties, and are not hearsay subject to exclusion.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 7,725,759 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,725,759

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.