• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00711 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 11–13, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 29 are unpatentable as obvious over Kelly, Kelly and Paulsen, or Walker and Schneier.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art There is no evidentiary dispute about the level of ordinary skill in the art.7 Based on the testimony of Mr. Crevelt, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering, with at least three years of experience in game development. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–103). Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Id. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted above is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’164 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the record.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner argues that it is not necessary for the Board to provide an express construction for any claim term because the Petition “establishes the prior art meets each claim limitation under any reasonable construction.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner similarly submits that “[t]he Board need not construe any terms at this stage, because under any reasonable construction of the claim terms, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed features.” Resp. 8–9. Patent Owner notes, however that “it has relied on the plain meaning of ‘frequency of play’ in Claim 7.” Id. at 9. We agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision because, even were we to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered plain meaning of “frequency of play,” Petitioner has demonstrated that the prior art renders obvious this claim limitation. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing that Kelly renders obvious the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 11–13, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 29. Resp., passim; Tr. 50:4–13.8 We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and 8 Patent Owner argued in its Preliminary Response that Kelly does not disclose limitations [1.c.iii] and [1.c.v]. Prelim. Resp. 10–12. In our Institution Decision, we did not find these contentions persuasive based on the initial record. Dec. 20–24. Patent Owner has not presented these or any other arguments contesting Ground 1 as to claim 1 in its Response. Resp., the evidence and, based on that analysis, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Kelly renders obvious the subject matter recited in these claims.” slip op. at 17

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

    “and Paulsen render obvious claims 2 and 4. Pet. 36–40. Petitioner submits that to the extent Kelly’s player account is not player’s club information or information on non-cash amounts, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement these features based on the teachings of Paulsen. Id. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Paulsen teaches player tracking cards and player tracking programs including player tracking points. Id. at 38–40 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 8, 9, 49). Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to add these features to Kelly’s system to provide a more detailed view of tracking play, which would allow for rewarding patronage and engagement. Id. at 36–37, 39–40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 264; Ex. 1007 ¶ 10). Paulsen discloses a “gaming machine bonusing method utilizing a player tracking card.” Ex. 1007, code (54). Paulsen discloses that player tracking programs and player tracking cards were used in the art to provide rewards, or “comps,” to players based on the player’s level of patronage (e.g., to the player’s playing frequency and/or total amount of game plays at a given casino). Id. ¶ 8. These rewards were intended to maintain a player’s interest in additional game play during a visit and provide loyalty incentives to players. Id. at ¶ 9.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,335,164 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,335,164
• Anthony Inc. v. Controltec, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2026 · IPR2025-00636 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 8–12 over Carter; claims 1–20 over Carter and Bunch; claims 3, 9, 10, and 19 over Carter, Bunch, and King; and claims 2, 11–13, and 17 over Carter, …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “testimony that we limit the level of ordinary skill to “refrigerated display cases.” Limiting the level of skill to an engineer with experience “working with refrigerated display cases” does not relate to the technology disclosed, and the invention claimed, in the ’847 patent, which is controlling condensation and conserving energy. E.g., Ex. 1001, 2:23–27 (“The invention is proactive in preventing condensation from forming by activating frame/door heaters before the dew point temperature at frame and door surfaces is reached. Power is then cycled off at a set point above dew point to save energy.” (emphases added)). An electrical engineer with a bachelor’s degree and 2 years of experience focused on lighting systems for refrigerated display cases would have “experience working with refrigerated display cases,” and thus meet Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Such a person, however, would not be experienced in controlling condensation, dew point sensor positioning, and condensation algorithm design, which is the focus of the disclosed and claimed invention, and which Mr. Pollock states “materially affect performance, energy use, and reliability” in controlling condensation in a refrigerated display case. Ex. 2037 ¶ 10. We also note that Mr. Pollock’s qualifications include a “B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, . . . with focus on thermal and mechanical systems, thermodynamics, and HVAC&R (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration).” Ex. 2037 ¶ 3. His academic focus is consistent with our determination of the level of ordinary skill. Accordingly, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’847 patent, finding Mr. Pollock’s testimony on this issue too general, and crediting Dr. Henze’s testimony with substantial probative weight, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. We” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’847 patent, finding Mr. Pollock’s testimony on this issue too general, and crediting Dr. Henze’s testimony with substantial probative weight, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. We more experience will offset less academic training, as did Dr. Henze (Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Thus, in this proceeding a person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a comparable field and at least three to five years of professional experience working with heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC&R) systems, and that more academic training will offset less experience, and more experience will offset less academic training. 2. Dr. Henze Is a Person of Ordinary Skill Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Henze is not a person of ordinary skill and thus is not qualified to provide expert testimony in this proceeding. PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Patent Owner’s argument requires a level of ordinary skill based on “working with refrigerated display cases,” which we have not adopted. PO Resp. 27. Based on the level of skill adopted in the previous section, we determine that Dr. Henze is qualified to provide expert testimony in this proceeding C. Claim Construction We construe each claim “using the same claim construction standard” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notNot reached

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Whether the preamble is or is not limiting is not necessary to resolve this controversy because it would not affect the outcome of this case. We also note that it is beyond reasonable dispute that Bunch, applied with Carter against all the challenged claims, discloses display cases with glass doors. Ex. 1006, 1:14–16. Bunch also discloses that, in the display cases, “[t]o combat condensation and frost, heaters are installed in refrigerator doors and frames, which raise the temperature of the door or frame sufficiently to eliminate condensation.” Id. at 1:24–26. slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.” (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992))). The Federal Circuit has laid out two separate tests to determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention, i.e., whether reference. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). These two tests are: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of [the inventor’s] endeavor” and “(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id.; see also Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Importantly, ‘the scope of any field of endeavor will vary with the factual description of each invention.’ Unlike the reasonable-pertinence test, the field-of-endeavor test does not look to the problem that the patent purports to address. It is enough that the prior art reference falls within the relevant field of endeavor of the patent-in-suit.”) (citations omitted); Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To determine if art is analogous, we look to ‘the purposes of both the invention and the prior art.’ If a reference disclosure and the claimed invention have a same purpose, the reference relates to the same problem, which supports an obviousness rejection.” (citations omitted)); see also Nielsen Co. (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc., 186 F.4th 1363, 1369–1370 (Fed. Cir. 2026) (providing a comprehensive summary and analysis of the applicable law concerning analogous art)” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,421,847 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,421,847
• Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Ziklag IP LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2026 · IPR2026-00047 · APJ Hung H Bui · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 9–14, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Yurt and Logan; the Board denied Petitioner’s motion to strike.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the record before us, we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s “proposed level of skill” is appropriate in this proceeding for reasons discussed below.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “McCulloh’s qualifications are grounded upon Patent Owner’s “proposed level of skill” (which we rejected) that is “higher than Petitioner’s proposed level” (which we adopted for this proceeding) and focus on their level of skill in the late 1990s timeframe (time of the invention), but there is no time requirement on when an expert acquired the requisite level of skill in the art. Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., 116 F. 4th 1335, 1340–1341 (declining to add a timing requirement to the minimum qualifications necessary to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art). “An expert need not have acquired that skill level prior to the time of the invention to be able to testify from the vantage point of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Rather, an expert can acquire the necessary skill level later and develop an understanding of what a person of ordinary skill knew at the time of the invention. In practice, the fact that the expert was not a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention may well be used during cross examination to undermine the credibility of the expert.” Id. Under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill (which we adopted), Dr. McCulloh is indeed qualified to testify in this proceeding because he has a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Carnegie Mellon University and extensive experience, including “hands-on deployment and academic research in distributed systems operating under real-world constraints” (Ex. 2009, Ex. 2010). See Ex. 2010 (CV) (BSIE, MS Comp. Sci, PhD Comp. Sci, Lieutenant 1994-1999, 10th Mountain Division (“led the army’s first tactical deployment of a distributed computing system”)); Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 6–10. Although Dr. McCulloh’s declaration does not include any searching or analysis of patent literature including Yurt or Logan as part of his analysis of the “background” state of the art, as correctly recognized by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 1017, 74:18–75:14; Ex. 2009 ¶ 3)), we are persuaded that Dr. McCulloh is qualified to address Dr. Lippman’s portrayal of the architecture disclosed in the ’128 patent, as advanced by Patent Owner. Ex. 2009, ¶¶ 3, 5–34; Ex. 2010. Dr. McCulloh does not provide testimony to refute Petitioner’s obviousness analysis based on Yurt and Logan. See Ex. 2009. Mr. Johnson is only offered to refute Petitioner’s obviousness analysis based on Yurt and Logan. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 3, 18, 29. Under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill (which we adopted), Mr. Johnson, who is a co-inventor of the ’128 patent, is qualified to testify in this proceeding, especially, when his declaration states that (1) he is a POSITA “with more than 30 years of experience building technology-driven media and contentdistribution systems” and (2) he “was actively involved in the development and deployment of digital music and video distribution technologies” since the mid-1990’s, including “real-time and near-real-time electronic delivery of media content.” Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 9–10, 14, 16. Certainly, “[t]he inventor himself may qualify as an expert and testify what his claims would mean in the relevant art.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction needed

    “Plain Meaning of “Substantially Real Time” Instead, the plain meaning of “substantially real time” is readily apparent and understood by a person of skill (POSITA) in the art in the context of data distribution or transmission of the ’128 patent as referring to an acceptable time delay (i.e., “a fraction of real time”) between distribution center 18 and user device 12, via network 14, shown in Figures 1–2 of the ’128 patent and, as such, is consistent with the ‘128 patent’s specification and Dr. Lippman’s Declaration (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 79, 126). Because the plain meaning of “substantially real time” as understood by a POSITA is readily apparent, there is no reason for the Board to consider Patent Owner’s clarification of “substantially real time” based solely on extrinsic evidence, i.e., counsel argument, Mr. Johnson’s declaration (Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 27, 29–30, 33, 39; Ex. 1018, 38:13–39:20) and Dr. McCulloh’s declaration (Ex. 2009, ¶ 19). For example, Patent Owner, relying upon Mr. Johnson’s testimony, clarifies the term “substantially real time” requires either (1) “playback while transmission is ongoing” (PO Resp. 30), or (2) “[a] coordinated system behavior in response to a user’s request” “in which a user request triggers coordinated operations, including locating content across distributed systems, routing that content, and initiating playback while transmission is ongoing” (PO Sur-Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:67–3:2, 6:23–35)). However, Patent Owner’s shifting position regarding “substantially real time” is not commensurate with the plain reading of the term. Based on the plain meaning of “substantially real time,” we are persuaded by Petitioner that Yurt explicitly discloses transmitting data at least in “real time,” preferably “less than real time” or “a fraction of real time” for playback. Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex.1005, code (57), 1:66–2:4, 4:68– 5:3 (teaching distributing “digital audio” in “less than real time” and in “a fraction of real time,” where the receiving system may “decompress in real time the requested material as it is distributed by transmission system 100”)).” slip op. at 36

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

    “teaches or renders obvious all limitations of claim 1, Petitioner also provides sufficient motivation or reasoning with a rational underpinning to combine Yurt and Logan. Specifically, Petitioner, relying on Dr. Lippman’s declaration (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 62–73), asserts “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Yurt with Logan for several reasons, discussed further below. Combining Logan’s usage log teachings with Yurt’s improved audio file accessibility (e.g., via popularity) to track additional user request information would have been obvious, beneficial, and predictable.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 62–72). According to Petitioner, because “Logan teaches implementation details for tracking user/usage data for billing purposes and adapting preferences ‘based on actual usage,’” “[a] POSITA would have thus been motivated to combine Yurt’s teachings (e.g., tracking information about requested items like item popularity) with Logan’s teachings (e.g., storing user data and usage information in response to user requests).” Id. at 19–20. “This would have been merely the use of a known technique (Logan’s tracking of user and usage data in response to user requests) to improve a similar method in the same way (Yurt’s tracking of information about user-requested items).” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 67– 68). According to Petitioner, [T]he combination is straightforward: use Logan’s known technique for recording user data with Yurt’s existing item database teachings. See Ex. 1005, 12:28–57, 10:66–11:4; Ex. 1006, 5:33–42, 6:27–35, 8:49–58; Pet. 19–23. Since Yurt already teaches using its item database to track item popularity and request information, no modification to Yurt’s architecture is necessary. Logan merely confirms when and how to store the user information. Pet. 19–21. A POSITA would have found the combination obvious for all the reasons Dr. Lippman provided. See, e.g., Ex.1003, ¶¶ 71–72.” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 6,182,128 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,182,128
• Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Ziklag IP LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2026 · IPR2025-00700 · APJ Hung H Bui · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 9–14, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Yurt and Logan; Petitioner’s motion to strike is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the record before us, we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s “proposed level of skill” is appropriate in this proceeding for reasons discussed below.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill (which we adopted), Dr. McCulloh is indeed qualified to testify in this proceeding because he has a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Carnegie Mellon University and extensive experience, including “hands-on deployment and academic research in distributed systems operating under real-world constraints” (Ex. 2009, Ex. 2010). See Ex. 2010 (CV) (BSIE, MS Comp. Sci, PhD Comp. Sci, Lieutenant 1994-1999, 10th Mountain Division (“led the army’s first tactical deployment of a distributed computing system”)); Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 6–10. Although Dr. McCulloh’s declaration does not include any searching or analysis of patent literature including Yurt or Logan as part of his analysis of the “background” state of the art, as correctly recognized by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 1017, 74:18–75:14; Ex. 2009 ¶ 3)), we are persuaded that Dr. McCulloh is qualified to address Dr. Lippman’s portrayal of the architecture disclosed in the ’128 patent, as advanced by Patent Owner. Ex. 2009, ¶¶ 3, 5–34; Ex. 2010. Dr. McCulloh does not provide testimony to refute Petitioner’s obviousness analysis based on Yurt and Logan. See Ex. 2009. Mr. Johnson is only offered to refute Petitioner’s obviousness analysis based on Yurt and Logan. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 3, 18, 29. Under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill (which we adopted), Mr. Johnson, who is a co-inventor of the ’128 patent, is qualified to testify in this proceeding, especially, when his declaration states that (1) he is a POSITA “with more than 30 years of experience building technology-driven media and contentdistribution systems” and (2) he “was actively involved in the development and deployment of digital music and video distribution technologies” since the mid-1990’s, including “real-time and near-real-time electronic delivery of media content.” Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 9–10, 14, 16. Certainly, “[t]he inventor himself may qualify as an expert and testify what his claims would mean in the relevant art.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The fact that Johnson is a co-inventor is not in and of itself sufficient to discredit his testimony. “That an expert may have a bias or self-interest towards a party on whose behalf he or she is offering testimony, without more, generally does not require disqualifying the expert so long as the expert appears to be providing an objective analysis. Bias goes to the weight of the testimony, not necessarily its admissibility.” Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F. 3d 1286, 1321–22 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nevertheless, the Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he Board was well within its discretion to give more credibility to [one expert over another] unless no” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the record before us, we determine that neither Patent Owner’s proposed clarification nor an express construction of “substantially real time” is necessary for our proceeding. Plain Meaning of “Substantially Real Time” Instead, the plain meaning of “substantially real time” is readily apparent and understood by a person of skill (POSITA) in the art in the context of data distribution or transmission of the ’128 patent as referring to an acceptable time delay (i.e., “a fraction of real time”) between distribution center 18 and user device 12, via network 14, shown in Figures 1–2 of the ’128 patent and, as such, is consistent with the ‘128 patent’s specification and Dr. Lippman’s Declaration (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 79, 126). Because the plain meaning of “substantially real time” as understood by a POSITA is readily apparent, there is no reason for the Board to consider Patent Owner’s clarification of “substantially real time” based solely on extrinsic evidence, i.e., counsel argument, Mr. Johnson’s declaration (Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 27, 29–30, 33, 39; Ex. 1018, 38:13–39:20) and Dr. McCulloh’s declaration (Ex. 2009, ¶ 19). For example, Patent Owner, relying upon Mr. Johnson’s testimony, clarifies the term “substantially real time” requires either (1) “playback while transmission is ongoing” (PO Resp. 30), or (2) “[a] coordinated system behavior in response to a user’s request” “in which a user request triggers coordinated operations, including locating content across distributed systems, routing that content, and initiating playback while transmission is ongoing” (PO Sur-Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:67–3:2, 6:23–35)). However, Patent Owner’s shifting position regarding “substantially real time” is not commensurate with the plain reading of the term.” slip op. at 36

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

    “Conclusion as to Claim 1 Petitioner has shown that (1) Yurt and Logan teach or suggest all the limitation of claim 1 and (2) reasons sufficiently existed with a rational underpinning to support the combination of Yurt and Logan.” slip op. at 63

  Patent outcomesUS 6,182,128 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,182,128
• Anthony Inc. v. Controltec, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 25, 2026 · IPR2025-00559 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over the five asserted grounds based on Carter, Beatenbough, King, Gatling, and Kotani.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find unpersuasive Mr. Pollock’s testimony that we limit the level of ordinary skill to “refrigerated display cases” because defining the level of skill as an engineer with experience “working with refrigerated display cases” does not relate to the technology disclosed and claimed in the ’181 patent, which is controlling condensation and conserving energy. E.g., Ex. 1001, 2:17–21 (“The invention is proactive in preventing condensation temperature at frame and door surfaces is reached. Power is then cycled off at a set point above dew point to save energy.” (emphases added)). An electrical engineer with a bachelor’s degree and 2 years of experience focused on lighting systems for refrigerated display cases would have “experience working with refrigerated display cases,” and thus meet Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Such a person, however, would not be experienced in controlling condensation, dew point sensor positioning, and condensation algorithm design, which is the focus of the disclosed and claimed invention, and which Mr. Pollock states “materially affect performance, energy use, and reliability” in controlling condensation in a refrigerated display case. Ex. 2014 ¶ 11. We also note that Mr. Pollock’s qualifications are a “B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, cum laude, from Drexel University (1998), with focus on thermal and mechanical systems, thermodynamics, and HVAC&R (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration).” Ex. 2014 ¶ 3. Accordingly, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’181 patent, finding Mr. Pollock’s testimony on this issue too general, and crediting Dr. Henze’s testimony with substantial probative weight, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. We modify it to state that more academic training will offset less experience, and more experience will offset less academic training, as did Dr. Henze (Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Thus, in this proceeding a person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a comparable field and at least three to five years of professional experience working with heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and refrigeration” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “The fundamental role of expert testimony is that “the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact [here, the Board] to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). The testimony must be “based on sufficient facts or data” (id. at 702(b)); must be “the product of reliable principles and methods” (id. at 702(c)); and must reflect “a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case” (id. at 702(d)). We determine, based on the record before us, that Dr. Henze’s Declaration testimony meets these requirements. He provides, as required, the facts and data to support his testimony. Indeed, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Code of Federal Regulations require him to do so. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Expert testimony that “merely repeats, verbatim, the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support,” or that “does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support” the testimony is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (Precedential) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 31

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

    “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, whether the preamble is or is not limiting is not argued by Petitioner. Moreover, whether the preamble is or is not limiting is not necessary to resolve this controversy because it would not affect the outcome of this case. 2. “Adapted for” Patent Owner asserts that the term “adapted for” in independent claims 1 and 8 has its “plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 14. Patent Owner does not, however, provide us with a specific identification of what is the “plain and ordinary” meaning. Petitioner does not address a specific construction for this term. Thus, it is not in controversy and we need not specifically construe this term. slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.” (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992))). The Federal Circuit has laid out two separate tests to determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention, i.e., whether one of ordinary skill in the art would even look to the teachings of that reference. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). These two tests are: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of [the inventor’s] endeavor” and “(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id.; see also Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Importantly, ‘the scope of any field of endeavor will vary with the factual description of each invention.’ Unlike the reasonable-pertinence test, the field-of-endeavor test does not look to the problem that the patent purports to address. It is enough that the prior art reference falls within the relevant field of endeavor of the patent-in-suit.”) (citations omitted); Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To determine if art is analogous, we look to ‘the purposes of both the invention and the prior art.’ If a reference disclosure and the claimed invention have a same purpose, the reference” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 7,207,181 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,207,181
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00339 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 23, 28, and 30 are unpatentable over Choi, Labaziewicz, and Yu; claims 1–3, 10–12, 24, 25, 32, and 33 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “We decline Patent Owner’s invitation to construe “during a frame” of “independently controlling simultaneous data acquisition with each of the first and second channels during a frame” by importing the extraneous limitations “at some point between the beginning and the end of the exposure interval during which the image sensors capture a single image.” As pointed out by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is unsupported by the language of claim 22 and the ’180 Specification because Specification does not disclose an exposure interval nor suggest “during a frame” is limited to an exposure interval. Patent Owner and its expert Dr. Saber cite only extrinsic evidence (Exs. 2006, 2009) to support its argument that claim 22 should be limited to an “exposure interval during which the image sensors capture a single image.” See PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2020 ¶ 64. Similarly, Patent Owner relies only on extrinsic evidence (e.g., Ex. 2011, 1; Ex. 2022, 1; Ex. 2020 ¶ 66) to limit “during” to “at some point between the beginning and the end.” See id. at 18. When considered in the context of claim 22 and the ’180 Patent Specification which do not limit “during a frame” to an exposure interval, we find that we cannot rely on Patent Owner’s citations to extrinsic evidence to yield a reliable construction for “during a frame.” As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not provide an explicit construction for “during a frame” to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the merits of the patentability challenges. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375. We apply the ordinary and customary meaning for “during a frame.” To the extent that an explicit identification of the ordinary and customary meaning may aid the understanding of our analysis, consistent with the language of claim 22 and the ’180 Patent Specification, we find that the ordinary and customary meaning for “during a frame” is “during the period of time that data for an image frame is acquired.” See Ex. 1001, code (57), 20:6–24, 25:23–35.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” and that “[l]ess experience may be necessary with additional education, and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’180 Patent Specification and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Owner to show that Labaziewicz is not prior art because the ’180 Patent is entitled to the earliest August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”). Patent Owner’s arguments fail to meet this burden of production because, aside from addressing deficiencies of written description support the ’854 Provisional Application provides written description support for all of the limitations of the claimed invention. See PO Resp. 60–64; PO Sur-reply 25–28. Specifically, Patent Owner does not address written description support in the ’854 Provisional Application for “independently controlling simultaneous data acquisition with each of the first and second channels during a frame”––limitation [22.3]––the heart of the parties’ claim construction disputes addressed above in Section II.A. See PO Resp. 60–64; PO Sur-reply 25–27. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not met its burden of production in coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the claimed invention in the ’854 Provisional Application. As a result, the burden of production does not shift back to Petitioner, and, therefore, the ’180 Patent is not entitled to the benefit of the August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner does not present arguments that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Matsushima to acquire data for images 62A and 62B at the argues that Matsushima renders obvious this limitation. See id. at 21, 23, 30; PO Resp. 33–34 (“[T]he Petition provides no further explanation why Matsushima renders this limitation obvious.”). In the Reply for the first time, Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would understand that Matsushima’s disclosure, including its multi-channel architecture, synchronous control of channels, and capturing two images that are scaled versions of the same scene, renders obvious simultaneous acquisition during a frame. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 49). We do not consider Petitioner’s belated argument because it exceeds the proper scope of a reply. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “respond” “does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Trial Practice Guide at II.I. (December 2025)(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23).10 A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. See id. For example, a “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,916,180 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,916,180
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00221 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 over Dateki; claims 3 and 7 over Dateki and Mate; and claims 4 and 8 over Dateki and Chitrapu.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “[w]ould have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the wireless communications systems that are pertinent to the ’889 patent. That person would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of wireless communication systems or design of similar communication systems. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 25). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally, PO Resp. Based on this record, and because there is no dispute, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’889 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11

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

    “do not recite, as Patent Owner interprets it, that the extracted power control information upon which the UE bases its transmission of a signal be “the same” power control information extracted from the control message. PO Resp. 25. Where the claim is clear on its face, we decline to inject “the same” into the construction, that is, words that are not actually in the claim. Yet considering the plain language of claim 1, we mostly agree with Patent Owner’s interpretation, namely that “a transmission power level based on the extracted power control information,” as required in limitation [1.6] includes power control information extracted from “the control message,” in limitation [1.5] having “power control bits for a plurality of UEs” as recited in limitation [1.4]. Ex. 1001, 10:2–19. We understand and interpret the concluding limitation in method-type claim 5 in the same manner as limitation [1.6].” slip op. at 13

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

    “do not recite, as Patent Owner interprets it, that the extracted power control information upon which the UE bases its transmission of a signal be “the same” power control information extracted from the control message. PO Resp. 25. Where the claim is clear on its face, we decline to inject “the same” into the construction, that is, words that are not actually in the claim. Yet considering the plain language of claim 1, we mostly agree with Patent Owner’s interpretation, namely that “a transmission power level based on the extracted power control information,” as required in limitation [1.6] includes power control information extracted from “the control message,” in limitation [1.5] having “power control bits for a plurality of UEs” as recited in limitation [1.4]. Ex. 1001, 10:2–19. We understand and interpret the concluding limitation in method-type claim 5 in the same manner as limitation [1.6].” slip op. at 13

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

    “where packet transmission is conducted, “the transmission power control information is transmitted via the HS-SCCH as second transmission power control information TPCC at a shorter periodic cycle.” PO Resp. 11 (quoting Ex. 1005, 13:11–13). But in context, after describing transmission of TPCC 1 on F-DPCH, Dateki says “[a]lso, in a case where packet transmission is conducted, the transmission power control information is transmitted via the HS-SCCH as second transmission power control information TPCC at a shorter periodic cycle.” Ex. 1005, 13:8–13 (emphasis added). We find it significant that the word “also” is used by Dateki, here, to describe the relationship of TPCC 1 and TPCC 2 as used together. If the intent was to transmit and use only TPCC 2 on HS-SCCH when data packets are transmitted on HS-PDCH, it would have made more sense to say “alternatively,” and otherwise make clear that only TPCC 2 is transmitted. But they did not. On the other hand, the inventors certainly understood how to explain when TPCC 2 is not transmitted. For example, Dateki makes clear that in certain embodiments TPCC 2 is unnecessary and “transmission power control may be effectively realized without including transmission power control information in the HS-SCCH.” Id. at 14:33–35. The same cannot be said for TPCC 1.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 11,664,889 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,664,889
• Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,110
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Eyesmatch Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,110
• Bizlink Technology, Inc. v. Anderson Power Products, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00687 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 7–12 are unpatentable; claim 4 is not shown unpatentable because Winkler does not establish that its insulating barriers press against each other when partially disconnected.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s first argument that a level of ordinary skill in the art that encompasses an individual having experience with electrical circuits but not electrical connectors is not consistent with the technology and descriptions in the ’017 patent. See PO Resp. 7. The field of the invention of the ’017 patent is “electrical connectors, and more particularly, . . . an electrical connector that suppresses arcing if connected or disconnected while current is flowing.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–9. Consistent therewith, the challenged claims are directed to “[a]n electrical connector pair” and recite structural features of the electrical connector pair. Id. at 4:20–56, 5:1–20.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find that the intrinsic evidence supports maintaining our construction in the Institution Decision that “insulating” means “electrically insulating.” See Dec. 11–12. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the insulating barriers would be unable to be configured to “block[] substantially all through-air arcing paths between the first and second electrical contacts,” as claimed, unless they were electrically insulating. See Ex. 1001, 4:36–44. Moreover, as Patent Owner avers, our interpretation of “insulating” as it applies to the first and second insulating barriers should be the same as for the first and second housings. See Digital Biometrics, 149 F.3d at 1345 (“whatever interpretation we assign [to a word used in a claim] should encompass both uses because the same word appearing in the same claim should be interpreted consistently” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 15

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

    “Ex. 2001 ¶ 102. Accordingly, we find Dr. Eldering’s testimony persuasive as to this issue and determine that the diagram shows what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably inferred Winkler to disclose when the connectors are partially disconnected. Compare Ex. 1004, Fig. 2, with Pet. 33; see also Ex. 1004, 3:14–27 (discussing the process by which the connectors are engaged with each other).” slip op. at 44

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

    “Id. at 3:27–37 (emphasis added). These wall portions 58 are located between the distal ends of the terminals and where Petitioner proposes to add a printed circuit board or wiring board to Winkler. See id. at Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46 (diagrams showing Winkler as modified to have a printed circuit board or wiring board). As such, movement of Winkler’s terminals appears to be mostly limited to within their respective receiving pockets. Given the above teachings, we fail to see how Petitioner’s proposed modification would have meaningfully interfered with the degree of freedom of movement required by Winkler’s terminals. Notably, Mr. Locati’s testimony regarding this issue is conclusory. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 120. Because movement of Winkler’s terminals occurs primarily in the receiving pockets, we also do not discern how the solder joint of Petitioner’s proposed modification would experience undue stress or risk breaking due to that movement. See Ex. 1004, 1:47–55, 3:14–37, Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46. This is particularly true in view of Winkler’s teaching that each cylindrical end portion may be soldered to a cable. See id. at 2:6–10; see also Pet. 43 (arguing that Winkler teaches soldering to a cable but not specifically to a printed circuit or wiring board). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Winkler and Handbook.” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 8,808,017 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,808,017

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.