• 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
• 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
• Intel Corporation / Opensky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 12, 2023 · IPR2021-01064 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted Shaffer- 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 POSITATerm construed board ownDecided 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” slip op. at 8

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

    “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. Patent Owner argues additionally that the asserted combination would have required modifying devices to support reduced speed, and that the required modifications would increase cost and complexity such that skilled artisans would not have made the combination. PO Resp. 42–47. Petitioner responds, on the other hand, that devices with thousands of transistors were commonplace at the time of the ’759 patent’s invention. Pet. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 118–119). We agree with Petitioner that the added complexity required by the asserted combination would not have risen to a level that skilled artisans would have been dissuaded from making the combination. In particular, we agree that, by 2005, when the application resulting in the ’759 patent was filed, Terrell’s approach did not present a significant technological obstacle to a skilled artisan seeking to modify Chen’s system. See Pet. Reply 18. We credit Dr. Jacob’s testimony that technology had advanced considerably following Chen’s mid-1990s disclosure such that the modification would have imposed a modest likewise would minimize any challenge skilled artisans would have had with modifying Chen’s master devices. See PO Resp. 42–43. Those devices would have required only modest changes to work with the modified system, and skilled artisans implementing Chen’s system in 2005 would have done so with integrated devices, thus eliminating Patent Owner’s asserted need to modify a host of disparate devices. See Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 119, 132–137. Patent Owner further challenges Petitioner’s reliance on Terrell’s statement that its teachings apply to “[a]n on-chip bus that hosts two or more bus masters, all of which share a common bus clock.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 6, 8; PO Resp. 47–48 (citing Pet. 46). Patent Owner points out that Chen’s bus 40 is a peripheral, off-chip bus and implicates different design constraints. Id. Petitioner contends that, regardless of whether Chen’s bus is itself an on-chip bus, technological progression after Chen resulted in master devices moving on-chip and using an on-chip bus. Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 132–137). Notwithstanding Dr. Jacob’s testimony that Chen’s system would be implemented differently by the time of the ’759 patent, the dispute does not change our determination because, as discussed above, Petitioner has shown that skilled artisans would have made the asserted combination, aside from Terrell’s statement about on-chip buses. Terrell’s statement of particular applicability to on-chip buses does not undermine its separate statement regarding the desirability of reducing power consumption by reducing clock frequency when possible. Ex. 1004 ¶ 5. That express teaching shows that skilled artisans understood the possibility of reducing power by reducing frequency. We conclude that skilled artisans had reason to arrive at the asserted combination.” slip op. at 32

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

    “When the evidence shows that a product includes “the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent,” we presume that any commercial success of the product is due to the patented invention. PPC Broadband v. Corning Optical Commc’ns, 815 F. 3d 734, 746–747 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Such claims, but also that it is coextensive with them. See Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[P]resuming nexus is appropriate ‘when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018))).” slip op. at 23

  • 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. Indeed, during his cross-examination, Dr. Jacob confirmed that the Original Declarations set forth his opinions regarding the ’759 patent. Ex. 2066, 69:12–17 (identifying Ex. 1002), 72:11–21 (identifying Ex. 1046), 73:4–10 (confirming the declarations set forth his opinions). In Intel’s proceeding asserting the same grounds and seeking joinder, Dr. Jacob filed a declaration reaffirming his Original Declarations and confirming that he would appear for cross-examination. IPR2022-00366, Ex. 1049. We noted that Dr. Jacob’s reaffirming declaration and availability for cross-examination allayed concerns about hearsay. Paper 43 (joinder decision), 15. While the reaffirming declaration is not of record in this proceeding, opinions serve the same role. Patent Owner has suffered no prejudice from Dr. Jacob’s Original Declarations. We have considered Patent Owner’s other arguments (Paper 95) and find them just as unavailing. The fact that the Jacob declarations were prepared for another proceeding is immaterial in this case because Dr, Jacob has expressly adopted them for this proceeding. Id. at 1–3. Nor is a hearsay exception necessary, as the reaffirmance of the prior testimony by Dr. Jacob and his cross-examination in this proceeding overcomes any plausible hearsay argument or the necessity for a hearsay exception. Id. at 3–5. Finally, there is no merit to Patent Owner’s suggestion (id. at 5) that reliance on Dr. Jacob’s reply declaration is somehow contrary to our procedures, which specifically provide for replies by the petitioner (including new declarations). See USPTO Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019).12 For the reasons given, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 7,725,759 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,725,759
• Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01601 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over both listed combinations; the contingent motion to amend is granted, replacing them with substitute claims 3 and 4.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Prelim. Resp. 5. At the institution stage, we adopted Petitioner’s more general formulation, with a qualification. We stated we would also expect a person of ordinary skill to also have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner. Institution Dec. 19. We reasoned that our review of the ’199 patent and the cited prior art did not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’199 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. Id. at 19– 20. However, we observed that the arguments presented by the parties did not depend on the definition of the person or ordinary skill, and therefore, we concluded that our decision would be the same under either formulation. Id. at 20.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “device associated with a driver at all.” PO Resp. 39 (citing Valenti III Decl. ¶ 94). Patent Owner continues, “Petitioner’s expert acknowledges that Lalancette does not disclose the use of a mobile communication device associated with the driver.” Id. (citing Williams Dep. 128:14–129:25, 132:1–8). This is a misrepresentation of Mr. Williams’s testimony. He was not asked whether Lalancette “discloses” a mobile communication device; he was asked to agree whether Lalancette “identi[fies] the mobile computer as a mobile communication device.” Williams Dep 129:10–13. He explained his response later in his testimony: “In the passage where [Lalancette] references mobile computer, it doesn’t have a specific form factor discussion such as referencing Smartphones.” Id. at 132:5–8. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that this limitation is not met by Lalancette and we do not find the testimony of its expert, Dr. Valenti, credible or helpful. See Valenti III Decl. ¶¶ 94 (“Lalancette does not disclose a mobile device associated with a driver at all.”). As Petitioner points out, the argument supported by Dr. Valenti is an “attempt to improperly narrow the definition of a mobile device to only mean a smartphone of the driver.” Pet. Reply 24. We find that this argument and the supporting expert testimony are contradicted by the ’199 patent specification. See id, at 24–25 (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:10–11, defining mobile communication device broadly). We, therefore, find that the mobile computer disclosed in Lalancette meets the requirement of this claim limitation for a “mobile communication device associated with the driver.” We find for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates that Lalancette and Kemler meet limitation 1E.” slip op. at 45

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

    “We declined to adopt this implicit construction (and the related construction “actively generate”). Institution Dec. 23. The claims themselves do not require the controller to “actively formulate” a new indicator for the same rider requesting a subsequent trip for that second trip, or that “a new signal be actively formulated each time a ride is dispatched,” as Patent Owner’s analysis asserts. See infra. Nor is it clear how this construction is supported by the ’199 patent specification. The ’199 patent describes the controller as “communicatively coupled to the transceiver.” Ex. 1001, 2:10–11. Further, “[t]he controller is adapted to generate a first signal to be transmitted by the transceiver to a mobile communication device.” Id. at 2:12–14. Elsewhere in the patent, “controller” is defined as “any type of computing device, computational circuit, or any type of processor or processing circuit capable of executing a series of instructions that are stored in a memory associated with a with the controller.” Id. at 3:6–10. The operation of the controller is also described as follows: “The controller 110 may generate a first signal (also referred to herein as a ‘notification signal’) that is transmitted via the transceiver 120 to the mobile communication device 150 associated with the driver D.” Id. at 5:14–17. Still further, “[t]he controller 110 generates four different notification signals, NOTIFICATION-A, NOTIFICATION-B, NOTIFICATION-C, and NOTIFICATION-D, to be transmitted by the transceiver 120 to a first DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150A, a second DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150B, a third DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150C, and a fourth DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150D, respectively.” Id. at 6:39–46. And further, “[i]n other embodiments, wherein the vehicle identification system 11 is utilized, an indicatory signal to the rider's mobile communication device may be generated by the controller 110.” Id. at 7:4–7. In none of these descriptions of the controller’s operation is there” slip op. at 15

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

    “We find that the Petition and supporting expert testimony sufficiently demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Kemler and Kalanick with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 21–25. In addition to the reasons given supra, Petitioner explains that Kalanick’s “on-demand service system can also use location information from the driver’s device and/or transport information . . . to automatically determine the driver’s state or state of the transport service.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 29, 35). Petitioner explains that in Kalanick, “[w]hen a service application on the driver’s device determines that the transport service is to change state, such as to ‘arriving now,’ based on a determination that the driver is within a predetermined distance, the service application can trigger the indication device to output the user’s specific color.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 37). Thus, Kalanick’s system can “control the indication device to output the user’s color or other unique distinctive indicator based on the transport state.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, ¶ 38). Petitioner explains that Kemler describes a central dispatching system in which one or more server computing devices of the centralized dispatching system may select a vehicle to be dispatched based upon the location of the client computing device. Id, (citing Ex. 1008, 10:3–33). Thus, Petitioner explains that Kemler, like Kalanick, “discloses ride-matching based on proximity and distance to match requesting riders with drivers based at least in part on the proximity of their respective locations.” Id. Petitioner demonstrates that “a [person of ordinary skill] would find it obvious to modify Kalanick’s vehicle identification system in view of Kemler, at least because both systems disclose substantially similar ride-matching techniques based on proximity and distance to match requesting riders with drivers based at least in part on the proximity of their respective locations.” Id. at 23–24. Petitioner also explains that a person of ordinary skill would “anticipate success of such a modification.” Id. at 24. Petitioner explains that “the controller in Kalanick is already in communication with the car and could easily send a signal to activate the display with the unique code.” Id. (citing Williams I Decl. ¶ 121). Petitioner recognizes that although both Kalanick and Kemler “focus” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,559,199 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,559,199
• Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01598 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 11–20 are unpatentable as obvious over either asserted combination; the motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 29, 31, and 32.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Prelim. Resp. 5. At the institution stage, we adopted Petitioner’s more general formulation, with a qualification. We stated “[w]e would also expect a person of ordinary skill to also have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner.” Institution Dec. 16. We reasoned that our review of the ’637 patent and the cited prior art does not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’637 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. Id. However, we observed that the arguments presented by the parties did not depend on the definition of the person or ordinary skill, and, therefore, our decision would be the same under either formulation. Id. at 16–17.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Resp. 12–14. The fact that Kalanick may not “disclose any problem” arising from the possibility of two passengers in the same area having the same signal does not prove a problem did not exist or that a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to improve upon the solution for it. See Pet. Reply 5–6. Similarly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that there would be no reasonable expectation of success based on Kemler’s disclosure of a server farm. PO Resp. 24 (“The immense expense and complexity of operating a server ‘farm’ would be a reason to avoid Kemler’s teachings.”). Testimony from Mr. Williams establishes the advantages of such systems. Pet. Reply 7 (citing Williams I Decl. ¶¶ 124); Williams Dep. 82:1–88:25, 92:13–93:1; Williams III Decl. ¶¶ 34–35.5” slip op. at 33

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

    “We find that the Petition and supporting expert testimony sufficiently demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Kemler and Kalanick with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 21–27; Williams I Decl. ¶¶ 113–125; Williams III Decl. ¶¶ 5–17. In addition to the reasons given supra, Petitioner explains that Kalanick’s “on-” slip op. at 30

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The ’637 patent describes an indicator as “a ‘code’ (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier, on the display 130 and on a mobile communication device 140 associated with the user P to enable the user P to identify the vehicle that he/she has requested for a ride service.” Ex. 1001, 4:6–10. Consistent with this description in the specification, we construed the term “indicator” as a code (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier, for display to enable a match between a user/rider and a driver. Institution Dec. 20. We did not see a basis in the claims or specification for Patent Owner’s contention that a “new unique indicator” must be “actively formulate[d] . . . for each rider-driver trip while the driver is in transit.” Id. at 20 (citing Prelim. Resp. 29). Patent Owner does not address the construction of “indicator” in its Response. For the reasons given, therefore, we maintain our construction of this term. We discuss Patent Owner’s contention that a new indicator must be “actively formulated” further in connection with our consideration of the claim term “generate,” infra.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 9,892,637 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,892,637
• Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01599 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Kalanick and Kemler, anticipated by Lalancette, or obvious over Lalancette and Kemler.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Prelim. Resp. 5. At the institution stage, we adopted Petitioner’s more general formulation, with one qualification. Inst. Dec. 19. We stated we would also expect a person of ordinary skill to have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner. Id. at 19–20. We reasoned that our review of the ’987 patent and the cited prior art did not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’987 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. Id. at 20. However, we observed that our decision would be the same under either formulation. Id. at 20.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Williams, Petitioner’s expert, “acknowledges that Lalancette does not disclose the use of a mobile communication device associated with the driver.” Id. (citing Ex. 2022, 128:14–129:25, 132:1–8). Patent Owner misrepresents Mr. Williams’s testimony. Mr. Williams was not asked whether Lalancette “discloses” a mobile communication device, but rather was asked “You’ll agree that La[l]ancette doesn’t identify the mobile computer as a mobile communication device associated with the driver?” Ex. 2022, 129:10–13. specifically referenced, that description is not in that passage.” Id. at 129:14–16. Notably, Mr. Williams also testified that (i) “[t]he nature of La[l]ancette requires some sort of computing device in the taxi that has the ability to receive and communicate in order to get information, for example, icon information from the central computer”; (ii) “mobile computer . . . has a variety of form factors inclusive of something like a [s]martphone”; and (iii) “[i]n the passage where [Lalancette] references mobile computer, it doesn’t have a specific form factor discussion such as referencing [s]martphones.” Id. at 125:17–22, 129:20–25, 132:5–8.” slip op. at 38

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. “indicator” In our Institution Decision, we construed the term “indicator” as a “code (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier, for display to enable a match between a user/rider and a driver.” Inst. Dec. 22. We determined this construction was consistent with the description of an indicator in the specification of the ’987 patent. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:9–13). Neither party challenges this construction, which we maintain for this Final Written Decision. See PO Resp. 6; Pet. Reply 2; PO Sur-reply 2.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Because the specification and prosecution history do not explicitly provide a definition for the term “generate,” we looked to extrinsic sources to determine its plain meaning. Inst. Dec. 24. The Federal Circuit has approved the use of dictionaries for guidance in claim construction, “so long as the extrinsic evidence does not contradict the meaning otherwise apparent from the intrinsic record.” Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (approving of “consult[ing] a general dictionary definition of [a] word for guidance” in determining ordinary meaning); Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed. general dictionary definitions as an aid to claim construction.”) (citation omitted). One dictionary definition of “generate” is “to bring into existence: such as: . . . to originate by a vital, chemical, or physical process: PRODUCE.” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generate. We therefore construed the term “generate” as it relates to the controller in reference to a signal in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, which is “to originate or produce the signal.” Inst. Dec. 24–25.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,169,987 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,169,987
• Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01602 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Lalancette; the Board did not reach the anticipation or Kalanick–Kemler obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On the full record, we determine that Petitioner’s definition, with the above qualification, is consistent with the ’417 patent and the asserted prior art, and thus, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis herein, however, does not turn on which of the parties’ definitions we adopt. The parties’ statements made during the oral hearing are consistent with this point. See Tr. 75:17–18 (Patent Owner stating that “[i]t’s not clear to us that the level of ordinary skill arguments actually matter”), 106:12–17 (Petitioner stating that its arguments do not depend on which definition we adopt). In sum, we maintain Petitioner’s definition, as qualified, for the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, and employ it in our analysis of the parties’ unpatentability arguments.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In addition, because the Specification and file history do not explicitly provide a definition for the term “generate,” we look to a dictionary definition to illustrate its plain meaning for the parties. The Federal Circuit has approved the use of dictionaries for guidance in claim construction, “so long as the extrinsic evidence does not contradict the meaning otherwise apparent from the intrinsic record.” Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (approving of “consult[ing] a general dictionary definition of [a] word for guidance” in determining ordinary meaning); Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[O]ur decisions, including Phillips, do not preclude the use of general dictionary definitions as an aid to claim construction.”) (citation omitted). A dictionary definition of “generate” is “to bring into existence: such as: . . . to originate by a vital, chemical, or physical process: [produce].” Merriam-webster.com (accessed April 8, 2022), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generate (Ex. 3001). We therefore construe the term “generate” as it relates to the controller in reference to a signal in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, which is to originate or produce the signal.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Simply put, these arguments incorrectly conflate “signal” and “indicator” (e.g., icon). Claim 1 recites that a controller generates a signal, rather than reciting that the controller generates an indicator. Ex. 1001, 8:1–6. And the Specification of the ’417 patent is replete with examples of the controller generating signals, including those that represent an indicator, for transmission by a transceiver, which is different than generating the indicator itself. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:1–5, 5:4–7, 6:30–37, 6:62–65. And we find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that claim 1 requires a new indicator (e.g., icon) for each trip, and that the indicator cannot be pre-selected. PO Resp. 32. The language of claim 1 sets forth no such requirements. Ex. 1001, 7:31–8:14. Notably, Patent Owner does not cite to the Specification or claim language to support these arguments. PO Resp. 30–32. Rather, Patent Owner cites to the testimony of Dr. Valenti. Id. (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 78–82). We find that this testimony lacks factual 7 The’417 patent describes “an indicator” as “a ‘code’ (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier.” Ex. 1001, 4:8–10 (emphasis added). support and is entitled to little weight. 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.”); see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (finding that when “an analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term[,] . . . it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence”). In addition, because the Specification and file history do not explicitly provide a definition for the term “generate,” we look to a dictionary definition to illustrate its plain meaning for the parties. The Federal Circuit has approved the use of dictionaries for guidance in claim construction, “so long as the extrinsic evidence does not contradict the meaning otherwise apparent from the intrinsic record.” Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (approving of “consult[ing] a general dictionary definition of [a] word for guidance” in determining ordinary meaning); Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[O]ur decisions, including Phillips, do not preclude the use of general dictionary definitions as an aid to claim construction.”) (citation omitted). A dictionary definition of “generate” is “to bring into existence: such as: . . . to originate by a vital, chemical, or physical process: [produce].” Merriam-webster.com (accessed April 8, 2022), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generate (Ex. 3001). We therefore construe the term “generate” as it relates to the controller in reference to a signal in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, which is to originate or produce the signal.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “indicator” (e.g., icon). Claim 1 recites that a controller generates a signal, rather than reciting that the controller generates an indicator. Ex. 1001, 8:1–6. And the Specification of the ’417 patent is replete with examples of the controller generating signals, including those that represent an indicator, for transmission by a transceiver, which is different than generating the indicator itself. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:1–5, 5:4–7, 6:30–37, 6:62–65. And we find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that claim 1 requires a new indicator (e.g., icon) for each trip, and that the indicator cannot be pre-selected. PO Resp. 32. The language of claim 1 sets forth no such requirements. Ex. 1001, 7:31–8:14. Notably, Patent Owner does not cite to the Specification or claim language to support these arguments. PO Resp. 30–32. Rather, Patent Owner cites to the testimony of Dr. Valenti. Id. (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 78–82). We find that this testimony lacks factual 7 The’417 patent describes “an indicator” as “a ‘code’ (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier.” Ex. 1001, 4:8–10 (emphasis added). support and is entitled to little weight. 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.”); see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (finding that when “an analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term[,] . . . it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence”). slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,748,417 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,748,417
• Hulu, LLC v. Sito Mobile R&D IP, LLC And Sito Mobile, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2022 · IPR2021-00265 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–19, 21, 24, and 27 are unpatentable as obvious over Eyal and Wiser; claims 15, 16, 19, 21, and 27 are also unpatentable over Madison and Wiser.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The Specification sets forth the following definition: “[a] reservation is a feature that enables the streaming system 102 to reserve system resources, such as switches, processors, or media, either now or in the future, to ensure a quality media experience.” Ex. 1001, 11:59−62 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit has recognized that “the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess,” and “[i]n such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore, consistent with the definition in the Specification, we construe “reservation” as “a feature that enables the streaming system . . . to reserve system resources, such as switches, processors, or media, either now or in the future, to ensure a quality media experience.” Ex. 1001, 11:59−62. We agree with Patent Owner that the construction of the term “reservation” does 7 not require “a set of instructions uniquely identifying the communication device.” As to “reservation identification,” we adopt Patent Owner’s construction, construing the term “reservation identification” as “identification of a reservation” because this construction is consistent with the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, without requiring the identification to be unique.” slip op. at 7

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

    “is a feature that enables the streaming system 102 to reserve system resources, such as switches, processors, or media, either now or in the future, to ensure a quality media experience.” Ex. 1001, 11:59−62 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit has recognized that “the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess,” and “[i]n such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore, consistent with the definition in the Specification, we construe “reservation” as “a feature that enables the streaming system . . . to reserve system resources, such as switches, processors, or media, either now or in the future, to ensure a quality media experience.” Ex. 1001, 11:59−62. We agree with Patent Owner that the construction of the term “reservation” does 7 not require “a set of instructions uniquely identifying the communication device.” As to “reservation identification,” we adopt Patent Owner’s construction, construing the term “reservation identification” as “identification of a reservation” because this construction is consistent with the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, without requiring the identification to be unique.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Here, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’360 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical or computer engineering, or equivalent.” Pet. 16. And, such an artisan also would have had “at least two years of experience in distributed systems, multimedia streaming, and various HTTP-related technologies, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience,” citing to the Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D., for support. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59−61). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Michael Adams, provides similar assessment, but also testifies that such an artisan, alternatively, would have had “at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of distributed network systems and/or multimedia streaming.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 28. Neither party points out any meaningful difference between the parties’ assessments. We apply Patent Owner’s assessment on the level of ordinary skill in the art. However, our analysis would be the same under either party’s description.” slip op. at 9

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

    “added). Dr. Houh testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have used Wiser’s voucher ID in Eyal’s play-list because delivery servers may have a “limited number of active streams of data being delivered at any one time,” so that generating and tracking reservations by the content server using voucher IDs is necessary. Ex. 1003 ¶ 144 (citing Ex. 1006, 14:65−15:1). We agree with and credit Dr. Houh’s testimony, and we find that such an artisan of ordinary skill would have understood that, in Eyal in combination with Wiser, the voucher ID provided in the play-list is uniquely associated with the client device and a viewing session of the media. Ex. 1003 ¶ 151 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:30−33, 15:23−28). We do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that “Wiser teaches away from video.” PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 174). “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.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, nothing in Wiser would discourage a relevant artisan from applying its teachings to video media, as Patent Owner alleges. Patent Owner’s argument of teaching away is based on speculation. As discussed above, Wiser’s disclosure is not limited to audio media. Ex. 1006, 1:5−8, 1:23−26, 3:8−10; Ex. 1083, 145:20−147:21. The “mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover, KSR instructs us that “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize 20 that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. As Dr. Houh testifies, “[s]ervers’ limited streaming capacity was a common media delivery problem, and well-known solutions existed before the ’360 Patent, including generating a reservation to ensure resource availability for streaming media to the user.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 106, 167 (citing Ex. 1019, 263 (Discussion on Resource Reservation Protocols (RSVP) in the book entitled “Communication and Computing for Distributed Multimedia Systems”); Ex. 1023 (RSVP Specification); Ex. 1024, 194 (Discussion on the Reservation Protocol in the book entitled “Multimedia Servers”)).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,591,360 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,591,360
• Western Digital Corporation / Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Martin KusterAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2022 · IPR2020-01410 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 9–13, and 18 as anticipated by Hsiao, and claims 1–18 as obvious over Hsiao and Sun.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill does not materially differ from that articulated by Mr. Welch. Both require a bachelor’s in many of the same fields and roughly one to two years of experience with USB protocols or USB product development. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner indicates that the outcome of any arguments made in this case would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s description, which we determine to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The term “mounted on” appears in several limitations of claim 1, including limitations 1.c, 1.d, and 1.e. The dispute between the parties, however, centers only on how the term should be construed in limitation 1.e, which recites “a contact bar mounted on the connection surface of the substrate” (Ex. 1001, 9:63–64) and only with respect to the Grounds involving Chen. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions that Hsiao teaches a contact bar “mounted on” the connection surface of the substrate. See PO Resp. 42–55. For the reasons stated below, we determine Petitioner has not shown that Chen teaches certain other limitations of the independent claims regardless of whether it teaches “a contact bar mounted on the connection surface of the substrate.” See infra § II.D.2. Thus, it is not necessary to construe the term “mounted on” to resolve the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 10

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

    “2. Embedded to be Exposed Upon the Cover of the Contact Bar The only word in the phrase “embedded to be exposed upon the cover of the contact bar,” recited in claims 1, 12, and 18, that Petitioner offers a construction for is the word “embedded,” which Petitioner argues has no special meaning in the art and should be afforded its ordinary dictionary definition of “set firmly into a mass or material.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 111). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 34–35. We adopt Petitioner’s construction, which we find is supported by the evidence of record. Ex. 1005 ¶ 111.” slip op. at 10

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

    “It is well established that when a party seeks to prove conception through an inventor’s testimony, the party must proffer independent evidence corroborating the inventor’s testimony. Cooper, 154 F.3d at 1330. To be “independent,” the corroborating evidence must be evidence other than the inventor’s testimony. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The sufficiency of the proffered corroboration is determined by a “rule of reason” analysis in which all pertinent evidence is examined. See NTP, 654 F.3d at 1291. Even under the “rule of reason” analysis, however, the “evidence of corroboration must not depend solely on the inventor himself.” Cooper, 154 F.3d at 1321; see also Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (corroborating evidence must be “independent of information received from the inventor”).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,705,243 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,705,243
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Portal Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 22, 2020 · IPR2019-00513 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Junqua and Julia; the motion to amend is denied because proposed substitute claim 31 is unpatentable over the prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner, relying on testimony of Mr. McNair, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the database of Junqua using the well-known query language of SQL as taught by Julia, for the benefit of providing “a standard interactive and programming language for getting information from and updating a database” as taught by Julia. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:56–64, 9:2–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28, 74). We determine for the reasons given that converting the text in searchable form to a database query as taught by Junqua, where the database query is written in the well-known query language of SQL as taught by Julia, does no more than yield the predictable result of getting information from a database using the standard programming language of (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Ordinary Skill in the Art Claim 31 depends from claim 21. The Petition has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 21 would have been obvious over the combination of Junqua and Julia, as discussed in our analysis above. Claim 31 recites “wherein the location/proximity module consists of a radio frequency identification reader.” Petitioner, relying on testimony of Mr. McNair, contends Amitay teaches this limitation. Opp. 12 (citing Ex. 1018, 6:17–19, 6:37–41; Ex. 1022 ¶ 58). Amitay discloses a location sensor which may be an RF reader. Ex. 1018, 6:17–19, 6:37–41. For the reasons given, we determine that Amitay teaches this limitation. Claim 31 recites “the location/proximity device consists of an art museum exhibit equipped with a radio frequency identification tag.” Petitioner contends that Amitay combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill teaches this limitation. Opp. 12–14 (citing Ex. 1018, 6:27– 32, 7:32–33; Ex. 1027; Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 34, 58). Patent Owner contends that Amitay does not teach tagging art exhibits with RFID tags. Mot. 18. We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that Amitay alone does not teach this limitation, because, as Petitioner demonstrates, Amitay combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill teaches this limitation. Amitay discloses tagging an item with an RFID tag. Ex. 1018, 7:31–33. Mr. McNair testifies that tagging an art museum exhibit with an RFID tag was within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1022 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1026). Mr. McNair also testifies that using an” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelOther

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that Amitay alone does not teach this limitation, because, as Petitioner demonstrates, Amitay combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill teaches this limitation. Amitay discloses tagging an item with an RFID tag. Ex. 1018, 7:31–33. Mr. McNair testifies that tagging an art museum exhibit with an RFID tag was within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1022 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1026). Mr. McNair also testifies that using an guests about art museum exhibits was known in the art. Id. (citing Ex. 1027, 78–79, 84–87). Mr. McNair testifies that using the device of Junqua, Julia, and Amitay to provide information about art exhibits to museum guests yields the known benefit of reducing museum costs by providing virtual docents instead of human ones. Id. (citing Ex. 1027, 86). We rely on the testimony and supporting evidence of Mr. McNair to determine that Amitay combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,376,645 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,376,645

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.