• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 27, 2026 · IPR2022-01093 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand

  Claims 13 and 14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish that the received card information defines the memory location for the biometric signature.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed our Original Decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. ASSA Abloy AB, No. 2024-1492, 2025 WL 3134960, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), Paper 43. The Federal Circuit also noted that in light of the affirmance of our decision in another proceeding, IPR2022- 00600, challenging the same patent, the “errors the Board made in this appeal only extends to claims 3–18, which were not at issue in the other appeal.” Id. at *3 n 1. Therefore, in this proceeding, only challenged claims 13 and 14 remain. At the request of the parties, we permitted additional briefing addressing the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 44. Petitioner filed an opening brief (Paper 51 (“Pet. Remand Br.”)), and Patent Owner filed an opening brief (Paper 52 (“PO Remand Br.”)). Both parties also filed responsive briefs. Paper 54 (“Pet. Responsive Br.”); Paper 55 (“PO Responsive Br.”). This is a Final Written Decision on Remand addressing the patentability of the remaining challenged claims 13 and 14. To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “offers nothing to suggest that its card information ‘tells you’ where to store the fingerprint data.” ASSA ABLOY AB, 2025 WL 3134960 at *3. Reversing our determinations as to Hsu, the Court found that the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, “merely confirms the associative link between the card information and the biometric data. Still missing is any non-conclusory testimony that Hsu’s card information determines the memory location of the biometric data.” Id. at 8. Therefore, on remand, a central question is whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Tsukamura cures this deficiency. Petitioner has not done so. In the Petition, Petitioner relies on Tsukamura for teaching a specific location for storing fingerprint data. See Pet. 75 (stating that “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory”). Petitioner argues that “[t]hus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., ‘a memory location is specified by the card information.’” Id. at 75–76 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 215). In support, Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, testifies that “[i]f the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22

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

    “Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. However, considering the Federal Circuit’s decision, we determine such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 8, 2026 · IPR2022-01094 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand

  Claims 3–12 and 15–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish that card information defined the memory location for storing the biometric signature.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring [inter partes review] petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring a petition for inter partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon). That burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Consistent with our Original Decision, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’039 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of human-machine interfaces and device access security. Additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” slip op. at 11

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

    “1. Limitation 3(da) The issues on remand revolve essentially around limitation 3(da): Limitation 3(da) – storing the inputted biometric signature in a memory at a memory location defined by the provided card information; Ex. 1001, 12:61–63. Considering limitation 3(da) in our Original Decision, we explained that during an enrollment process the claimed “biometric signature,” e.g., a fingerprint, is not yet stored in the memory, and no memory location or address has been “defined,” as in “set” or “established,” in the memory for storing the fingerprint, until card information is received. Once the card information and fingerprint are received during enrollment, the card information provides data that establishes where, i.e., at what memory location or address, the system will store the fingerprint data. Original Decision 16.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable

    “Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a fingerprint database (44) and retrieve reference fingerprint data previously stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is set or established “at a memory location defined by the provided card information” as recited in claim limitation 3(da). Taking a close look at Petitioner’s testimonial evidence as to claim 3, we first note Mr. Lipoff testifies that Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. But, concomitant with the Federal Circuit’s point, such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC card information to define “as in ‘set’ or ‘establish[]’” a memory location, as our claim construction requires. See Section II.C.3.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 13, 2024 · IPR2022-01006 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Remand

  The Board revised the construction of “biometric signal” on remand, then held that Petitioner did not prove claims 1–17 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “vacated following review by the Director and remanded to us: (1) for additional briefing by the parties on the construction of the claim term “biometric signal;” and (2) our further consideration of the construction of this claim term. Paper 49 (“Director’s Decision” or “Dir. Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

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

    “Upon further consideration of the claim construction for the term “biometric signal,” based on the supplemental briefing of the parties, and other evidence of record, we revise the construction of this term to be “a physical or behavioral biometric attribute.” There is no persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to support Patent Owner’s assertion that a biometric” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “(‘POSITA’) at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in the field of security and access-control.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 30). Mr. Lipoff’s cited testimony merely repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill, preceded by the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 30. Mr. Lipoff does not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 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.”).” slip op. at 56

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “(‘POSITA’) at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in the field of security and access-control.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 30). Mr. Lipoff’s cited testimony merely repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill, preceded by the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 30. Mr. Lipoff does not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 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.”).” slip op. at 56

  Patent outcomesUS 9,665,705 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,665,705
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 13, 2024 · IPR2022-01089 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1–13 not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations did not teach or suggest limitations D(1), D(2), and D(3).

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Upon further consideration of the claim construction for the term “biometric signal,” based on the supplemental briefing of the parties, and other evidence of record, we revise the construction of this term to be “a physical or behavioral biometric attribute.” There is no persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to support Patent Owner’s assertion that a biometric” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Sturgell, 553 U.S. at 894–95 to determine whether Apple is a privy of Petitioner. After doing so, we reach the conclusion that there is no persuasive evidence that Apple is a privy of Petitioner because:” slip op. at 50

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The Graham analysis includes a factual determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Without that information, a court, or this Board, cannot properly assess obviousness “because the critical question is whether a claimed invention would have been obvious at the time it was made to one with ordinary skill in the art.” Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “This reference point prevents . . . factfinders from using their own insight or, worse yet, hindsight, to gauge obviousness.” Id. Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In determining a level of ordinary skill, we also may look to the prior art, which may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. Additionally, the Supreme Court informs us that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Petitioner states “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 55

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “access-control.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 26). Mr. Lipoff’s cited testimony merely repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill, preceded by the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. Mr. Lipoff does not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 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 Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (August 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 9,269,208 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,269,208
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 13, 2024 · IPR2022-01045 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Remand

  The Board revised “biometric signal” to include physical or behavioral attributes and held claims 1–13 not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Upon further consideration of the claim construction for the term “biometric signal,” based on the supplemental briefing of the parties, and other evidence of record, we revise the construction of this term to be “a physical or behavioral biometric attribute.” There is no persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to support Patent Owner’s assertion that a biometric 2 We cite to the record in IPR2022-01045, unless a specific citation to each Petition is required for clarity. Similar documents, generally having the identical exhibit or “Paper” number, were filed in each of the two proceedings to which this Decision applies. signal, as disclosed and claimed in the ’705 patent, is limited only to physical attributes and thus excludes behavioral attributes. The revised claim construction deletes the functional phrase “that provides secure access to a controlled item” in our original claim construction. Paper 42, 70. This functional phrase is unnecessary, and in fact, is redundant of language already in the challenged claims. The Director’s Decision also noted that “[n]either party’s proposed construction includes a requirement of ‘provid[ing] secure access to a controlled item.’” Dir. Dec. 6.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Upon further consideration of the claim construction for the term “biometric signal,” based on the supplemental briefing of the parties, and other evidence of record, we revise the construction of this term to be “a physical or behavioral biometric attribute.” There is no persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to support Patent Owner’s assertion that a biometric 2 We cite to the record in IPR2022-01045, unless a specific citation to each Petition is required for clarity. Similar documents, generally having the identical exhibit or “Paper” number, were filed in each of the two proceedings to which this Decision applies. signal, as disclosed and claimed in the ’705 patent, is limited only to physical attributes and thus excludes behavioral attributes. The revised claim construction deletes the functional phrase “that provides secure access to a controlled item” in our original claim construction. Paper 42, 70. This functional phrase is unnecessary, and in fact, is redundant of language already in the challenged claims. The Director’s Decision also noted that “[n]either party’s proposed construction includes a requirement of ‘provid[ing] secure access to a controlled item.’” Dir. Dec. 6.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “access-control.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 26). Mr. Lipoff’s cited testimony merely repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill, preceded by the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. Mr. Lipoff does not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 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 Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (August 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 9,269,208 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,269,208
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01089 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 1–13 unpatentable because the cited references did not disclose or suggest limitations D(1), D(2), and D(3).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “D. Conclusion Concerning Section 315(b) The totality of the evidence before us does not establish anything other than a traditional business relationship between Petitioner, who manufactures locks and similar security products that interface with smartphones, and Apple, who sells a smartphone. There is a sharing of confidential information between these parties. This common form of conducting business, without more, does not establish a relationship sufficient to make Apple a real party-in-interest or a privy of Petitioner in this inter partes review. There is no persuasive evidence that Apple has any control or substantive involvement over the Petition or over Petitioner’s role in this proceeding. There is no persuasive evidence of joint funding. There is no persuasive evidence of direct or implied coordination between Apple and Petitioner as to their respective decisions to bring these proceedings. There is no persuasive evidence that Apple was a “litigating agent” for Petitioner.29 Under these circumstances, a finding that Apple is a privy of Petitioner “would be improper.” See Uniloc 2017, 989 F.3d at 1029; see also Google LLC v. DDC Technology, LLC, IPR2023-00708, Paper 29 at 21–37 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2023) (determining that the mere existence of some business relationship was not sufficient to establish an RPI or privy status between the parties). Accordingly, based on the totality of the evidence of record and our” slip op. at 49

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “(‘POSITA’) at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in the field of security and access-control.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 26). Mr. Lipoff’s cited testimony merely repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill, preceded by the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. Mr. Lipoff does not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 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 Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (August 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 54

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “(‘POSITA’) at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in the field of security and access-control.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 26). Mr. Lipoff’s cited testimony merely repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill, preceded by the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. Mr. Lipoff does not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 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 Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (August 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 54

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

    “biometric signal.” Accordingly, we determine that we need to construe specifically the term “biometric signal” in this proceeding. slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 9,269,208 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,269,208
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01045 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to show claims 1–13 unpatentable because the cited references did not disclose or suggest limitations D(1), D(2), and D(3).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “D. Conclusion Concerning Section 315(b) The totality of the evidence before us does not establish anything other than a traditional business relationship between Petitioner, who manufactures locks and similar security products that interface with smartphones, and Apple, who sells a smartphone. There is a sharing of confidential information between these parties. This common form of conducting business, without more, does not establish a relationship sufficient to make Apple a real party-in-interest or a privy of Petitioner in this inter partes review. There is no persuasive evidence that Apple has any control or substantive involvement over the Petition or over Petitioner’s role in this proceeding. There is no persuasive evidence of joint funding. There is no persuasive evidence of direct or implied coordination between Apple and Petitioner as to their respective decisions to bring these proceedings. There is no persuasive evidence that Apple was a “litigating agent” for Petitioner.29 Under these circumstances, a finding that Apple is a privy of Petitioner “would be improper.” See Uniloc 2017, 989 F.3d at 1029; see also Google LLC v. DDC Technology, LLC, IPR2023-00708, Paper 29 at 21–37 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2023) (determining that the mere existence of some business relationship was not sufficient to establish an RPI or privy status between the parties). Accordingly, based on the totality of the evidence of record and our” slip op. at 49

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “4. Conclusion on RPI Considering the totality of the evidence and the controlling legal authority discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden in establishing that Apple is not a real party-in-interest. We recognize that “a nonparty to an IPR can be a real party in interest even without entering into an express or implied agreement with the petitioner to file an IPR petition.” AIT, 897 F.3d at 1354. In RPX, decided on remand from the Federal Circuit in AIT, “the evidence strongly suggest[ed]” that RPX was representing Salesforce’s interests in filing the IPR proceedings at issue in that case. RPX, IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 at 31. There is no such strong evidence in the proceeding before us. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. See, e.g., Ex. 1022 (Petitioner’s Interrogatory Responses). “Most critically,” in RPX, “Salesforce paid RPX to reduce Salesforce’s patent litigation exposure, and RPX filed the [ ] IPRs despite having no apparent risk of infringement liability itself.” RPX, IPR2015- 01750, Paper 128 at 31. Again, the evidence in RPX is significantly different from the evidence in the proceeding before us, where Petitioner was sufficiently threatened with infringement by Patent Owner to create jurisdiction for Petitioner’s Declaratory Judgment complaint against Patent Owner to establish that Petitioner did not infringe the ’208 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 120–128 (Petitioner’s Declaratory Judgment complaint seeking in Count II “a declaration that each entity [comprising Petitioner] does not infringe any claim of the ’208 Patent.”). The Declaratory Judgment complaint was filed on May 23, 2022 (see Ex, 2007 stating “Filed 05/23/22”). The Petition in this IPR proceeding was filed on June 3, 2022 (see Paper 5). The perceived benefits of challenging patentability in an inter partes review rather than challenging validity in a district court are well-known. Apple Inc. v. Vidal, 63 F.4th 1, 17 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (acknowledging “the realistically perceived advantages of the IPR process, including the applicability of a lighter burden of persuasion to prevail in challenging a patent claim than the burden applicable in district court.”). In such circumstances, “equitable and practical considerations” point clearly towards Petitioner having a valid, independent interest in filing the Petition in this proceeding. In AIT, the Federal Circuit also points us to our own Trial Practice” slip op. at 41

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “(‘POSITA’) at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in the field of security and access-control.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 26). Mr. Lipoff’s cited testimony merely repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill, preceded by the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. Mr. Lipoff does not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 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 Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (August 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning). Patent Owner states it “does not object to the defined level of skill in the art adopted in co-pending IPR2022-00601 (the ’601 IPR) challenging the ’208 Patent.” PO Resp. 8 (citing “IPR2022-00601, Paper 11 at 11–12”). The cited claim construction is from our Decision granting institution of an inter partes review in the ’601 IPR. The level of skill in the ’601 IPR was revised slightly in our Final Written Decision in the ’601 IPR. See ’601 IPR, Paper 31 at 15. The level of skill in the ’601 IPR was based on the arguments and evidence in the ’601 IPR, which differ from the arguments and evidence in the case before us. Accordingly, based on the prior art and the sophistication of the” slip op. at 54

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “(‘POSITA’) at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in the field of security and access-control.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 26). Mr. Lipoff’s cited testimony merely repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill, preceded by the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. Mr. Lipoff does not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 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 Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (August 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 9,269,208 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,269,208
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2023 · IPR2022-01006 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–17 not unpatentable because the cited references did not disclose or suggest limitations D(1), D(2), and D(3).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “6. Conclusion Concerning Section 315(b) The totality of the evidence before us does not establish anything other than a traditional business relationship between Petitioner, who manufactures locks and similar security products that interface with smartphones, and Apple, who sells a smartphone. There is a sharing of confidential information between these parties. This common form of conducting business, without more, does not establish a relationship sufficient to make Apple a real party-in-interest or a privy of Petitioner in this inter partes review. There is no persuasive evidence that Apple has any control or substantive involvement over the Petition or over Petitioner’s role in this proceeding. Accordingly, based on the totality of the evidence of record and our” slip op. at 48

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “relationship, involving legally binding contractual relationships between Apple and Petitioner, is sufficient under Taylor to make Apple a privy to this IPR proceeding. Id. Patent Owner also asserts that Apple is a privy to this IPR proceeding because Petitioner is capable of adequately representing Apple’s interests in this IPR proceeding. Id. On the record before us, for purposes of this Decision, we disagree with Patent Owner’s conclusion that Apple is a privy for purposes of this IPR proceeding. Patent Owner ignores the practical consequences of its own actions that precipitated the current situation.” slip op. at 47

  • Skill levelOther

    “not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 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.”).” slip op. at 53

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “biometric signal.” Accordingly, we determine that we need to construe specifically the term “biometric signal” in this proceeding. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims are construed only to the extent necessary to resolve a dispute). slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 9,665,705 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,665,705
• Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00794 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6–8 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art combinations did not establish the claimed messaging through the server system.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Tr. 78:6–10. Patent Owner responded “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination.” Tr. 78:13–14. We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems.” See Inst. Dec. 10. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ289 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “1. media player Patent Owner contends that, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’289 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 92–93). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player.’” Pet. Reply 1. Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software. Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 24–27)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device.” Pet. Reply 2 (alteration in original). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Muthukumarasamy “controls delivery of selected media content and selects and controls the media devices that deliver the selected media content according to a media type of the selected media content.” Because Muthukumarasamy teaches that the media device displays media content from various disparate sources depending on the media type and media source, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood the media device loads an appropriate media player depending on the media type and source. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 47; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67). Petitioner, however, proffers insufficient evidence or argument that the content choices described in paragraph 47 of Muthukumarasamy would have led an ordinarily skilled artisan to understand a media player is obtained and loaded in the content presentation device. Rather, Dr. Bederson makes conclusory statements without providing evidence to support the assertions (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67).” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Muthukumarasamy discussed above. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more messages in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file,” and “identify a location of the particular media player.” Pet. 41–45. More specifically, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate control of internet content presented at the content presentation device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward.” Pet. 65. However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the content presentation device” (Pet. Reply 22), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required messages being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward teaches “receiving, in a server system, one or more messages from a personal computing device . . . wherein the one or more messages, . . . identify a particular media player for playing content from the file wherein the media player is a computer application operable to present content and control presentation of the content,” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 6. Additionally, because claim 2 depends from claim 1 and claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that the subject matter of claims 2, 7, and 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 8,904,289 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,904,289
• Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00795 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 5–9 were not shown unpatentable over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward because the claimed signals identifying a media player were not shown to pass through the asserted server system.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ251 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 11

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

    “1. Media player Patent Owner contends, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’251 Patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 81–92, 95)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 23–26)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (see Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)))).” slip op. at 13

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

    “We determine that Hayward does not cure the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy discussed supra. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more signals in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing the video content” (Pet. 38–41). More specifically, Petitioner contends “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward” (Pet. 15, 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 60, 102)). However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device . . .” (Pet. Reply 22 (emphasis omitted)), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required signals being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251

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.