• Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 25, 2026 · IPR2025-00775 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious over each of the five asserted §103 grounds, including Carmel with Mattavelli and Carmel with Wang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that at the relevant time of the invention claimed in the ’849 patent (April 2005),2 a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field requiring learning computation principles, and two years of work experience in networking or streaming media systems, particularly audio and video, over the Internet,” where “[a]dditional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–23). In the Decision on Institution, the Board agreed with and applied Petitioner’s proposed definition. Dec. on Inst. 9–11. Patent Owner proposes a very similar definition of “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two to three years of experience in the design or development of (1) video processing systems, audio processing systems, and/or the equivalent; and (2) networking and communications systems, or the equivalent,” where “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” PO Resp. 23 2 Petitioner states that it “uses [the earliest possible priority date of April 18, 2005] as the priority date of the challenged claims.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner agrees that the “earliest effective filing date” of the challenged claims is April 18, 2005. PO Resp. 19. The ’849 patent is expired. See Ex. 1001, codes (63), (*); Paper 8, 33. would be the same under either level” of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Based on the full record developed during trial, including our review of the ’849 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’849 patent and cited prior art, we maintain the previously adopted definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but remove the term “at least” to avoid unnecessary ambiguity. Our analysis herein, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner states in the Petition that it “does not presently contend that any term requires express construction.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner “does not believe any terms of the ’849 [p]atent require express constructions for purposes of” this proceeding. PO Resp. 24; Sur-Reply 11. The Board did not interpret any terms in the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 8. We agree that no terms require express interpretation to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove unpatentability of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe” slip op. at 8

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

    “Finally, Petitioner explains in detail why and how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Carmel and Mattavelli, with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 50–55. Specifically, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Carmel’s system to use “Mattavelli’s CGD techniques to optimize the decoding of in more efficient network bandwidth usage and improved playback of multimedia data streams. Id. at 50, 52–53, 55. Petitioner contends that Carmel and Mattavelli are both directed to processing multimedia data playback “for the appreciation of a user,” while providing the highest perceived audio and video output quality possible in view of system constraints to ensure playback continuity. Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:35–49, 10:48–54, 11:9–18, Figs. 3D, 6B; Ex. 1004, 2309–10). Petitioner argues that Carmel and Mattavelli both pertain to compression of multimedia data using well-known coding and compression standards for video streaming. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:25–26, 11:24–52; Ex. 1004, 2309–11). Petitioner further asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that Carmel and Mattavelli “complement[]” each other because Carmel addresses constraints on available network bandwidth and Mattavelli addresses limits on available processing resources at the client/multimedia player. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003, code (57), 7:36–41; Ex. 1004, 2309–2312). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings in Carmel and Mattavelli to create a more robust streaming system that addresses both bandwidth constraints and client processing limits to provide the best possible playback experience. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 212–215). Petitioner also contends that Mattavelli teaches that merely optimizing transmission bandwidth is not sufficient and is potentially harmful, which provides an express motivation to combine Carmel’s and Mattavelli’s complementary teachings to ensure that different, related links in the streaming playback chain are optimized together. Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1002 express disclosure that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Mattavelli’s complementary teachings regarding decoding because Carmel states that multimedia playback is achieved “preferably with only a minimal necessary transmission and decoding delay.” Id. at 53–54 (quoting Ex. 1003, 10:50–54; citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 218). Patent Owner in its Response does not dispute that Carmel and Mattavelli teach the preamble and limitations 1[a.i]–1[c.i], or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted by Petitioner.6 Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Having reviewed Carmel and Mattavelli, on the complete trial record, we agree with Petitioner’s analysis, as supported by the testimony of” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,771,849 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,771,849
• Clearwater Paper Corporation v. Graphic Packaging International LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00878 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 11 are unpatentable as anticipated by Cleveland and obvious over Nakagawa and over Nakagawa combined with Tanner.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or chemical engineering, materials science, polymer science, or equivalent coursework, at least a year of experience developing paper-based laminates involving the application of polymer coatings to a substrate, and the appropriate industry familiarity with biodegradability standards and degradability techniques [and] . . . [l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50). Clearwater’s definition is uncontested, and we apply that definition here, as it accords with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art and the problems addressed in the specification of the ’126 patent. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We have reviewed the cited testimony of Clearwater’s expert, including their calculations for arriving at a coat weight in Nakagawa that falls within the claimed range. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–33. We find that testimony, which is unrebutted, both credible and supported by the evidence of record. Thus, in light of Clearwater’s contentions, the cited portions of Nakagawa, and the unrebutted testimony of Clearwater’s expert, we are persuaded that Nakagawa discloses or otherwise suggests each and every element of claim 1. See Pet. 45–54, 60–64. Clearwater also persuades us that Cleveland discloses the additional subject matter of dependent claims 2, 3, and 11. See Pet. 64–66. Thus, we determine that Clearwater demonstrates that claims 1–3 and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over Nakagawa. F. Ground 3—Obviousness Over Nakagawa and Tanner” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) “based on both its provisional and non-provisional filing dates.” Inst. Dec. 4 n.5. We were persuaded by Clearwater’s proof that Cleveland’s provisional (Ex. 1006) is “virtually identical” to Cleveland itself (Ex. 1005) and that the provisional provides written description support for at least claim 1 of Cleveland. See Pet. 18–21 (citing Ex. 1006, 2–6, 9). We were also persuaded by Clearwater’s showing that the provisional provides written support for the subject matter relied upon in Cleveland. Id. at 21–40 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–9). We are still persuaded by Clearwater’s showing. Thus, we see no reason to disturb our earlier finding that Cleveland is prior art to the ’126 patent.” slip op. at 7

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

    “protectant layers has “a coat weight of from 5 to 30 lbs/3000 ft2.” As noted by Clearwater, Cleveland discloses a total coat weight for layers 14 and 16 as falling within the claimed range. Pet. 32–34 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 32). In particular, Cleveland discloses that “the coextruded layer of copolyester (irrespective of which side of the substrate the layer is disposed) is of a total coat weight of between about 10 and about 40 lb/3000 ft2 in any combination of between about 80/20 to 20/80 parts by weight of Ecoflex to Biomax,” of which “a total coat weight of 25 lb/3000 ft2 is preferred.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 32. As disclosed, Cleveland’s total coat weight range of 10–40 lb/3000 ft2 falls almost entirely within the claimed range, and the preferred total coat weight of 25 lb/3000 ft2 falls squarely within the claimed range. Thus, Cleveland satisfies claim elements [1.3.2] and [1.5.2]. See Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art.”) (citation omitted). As such, we find that Clearwater adequately demonstrates that Cleveland discloses all the elements of claim 1. 4. Dependent Claims” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,637,126 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,637,126
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 21, 2026 · IPR2020-00558 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst because the combination teaches the claim limitations and has motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On February 13, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the appeal vacating the Second Final Decision as to all challenged claims and remanding for further proceedings. Netflix II, 7. The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s claim construction, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the claim construction the 6 The First Final Decision also addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 42), where we granted-in-part, denied-in-part, and dismissed-in-part that Motion. See 1st Final Dec. 28–37. Our determinations on that Motion were a part of Petitioner’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Paper 52. As the Federal Circuit did not address this aspect of the First Final Written Decision, we determine our conclusions with respect to that Motion remain undisturbed. Federal Circuit adopted. Id. The Federal Circuit issued its mandate on March 23, 2026.” slip op. at 4

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video streaming and media security or . . . a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in video streaming and media security.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67). Patent Owner does not refute Petitioner’s assessment and appears to apply such a level of skill in its arguments against combining Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst to teach or suggest the elements of the challenged claims. See generally PO Resp. As such, we continue to adopt and apply Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision. See Inst. Dec. 6; 1st Final Dec. 6; 2nd Final Dec. 10.” slip op. at 7

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

    “In response, we conclude that the most natural reading of limitation [l] results from examination of the entire limitation: “locating encryption information that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.” Ex. 1001, 27:54–57. The “within” most naturally connotes where the encrypted portions of frames of video occur, as opposed to determining where the encryption information may be located. Patent Owner’s interpretation is not wrong, i.e., the limitation could be read as Patent Owner suggests, leading to a narrower construction, but we are not persuaded that the construction of limitation [l] must be so limited, on the basis of the words themselves. We continue to reject Patent Owner’s interpretation that limitation [l] requires locating encryption information within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video. See Inst. Dec. 27–30; 1st Final Dec. 8. Although it is apparent that encryption information can be found within the requested portions, we are not persuaded that the claim language or ’588 Patent implicitly or explicitly requires such a relationship. Likewise, although embodiments disclosed in the Specification of the ’588 Patent are consistent with Patent Owner’s more restrictive construction, the Specification also is consistent with the more grammatically correct construction as well. Thus, we construe limitation [l] as requiring that the encrypted portions of frames of video be within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video, but we do not construe limitation [l] as requiring that the encryption information be within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We are persuaded that the Petition demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst, as asserted by Petitioner. As the Federal Circuit found, the Petition pointed to and relied upon the portions in Chen describing pre-Chen art, without scalability or FEC features that were part of what Chen describes as aspects of its own inventive system. Netflix I, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Pet. 17–19, 69–70). We agree with Petitioner that “Chen-924 teaches several embodiments that adaptively stream alternative representations of a video using partially encrypted container files.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1010, 14:41–15:60). We determine that Chen-924 provides support for the rationale provided in the Petition, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen and Lindahl in view of the disclosure of Chen-924. As discussed above, the Petition does not rely solely on privacy concerns and improvements to efficiency as its motivation to combine the references. See Pet. 18–19 (specifying piracy concerns, improvements to the efficiency of adaptive streaming, optimization of the balance between bitrate and bandwidth, and improvements to the end-user experience with fast startup and seek). With respect to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,225,588 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,225,588
• ARM Ltd v. Daedalus Prime LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00207 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 11–14, and 16–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, physics, or a similar field, and (2) approximately two years of industry or academic experience in a field related to microelectronic architecture design, including experience with cache management in multicore systems-on-a-chip (SoCs). (Ex-1003 ¶¶50-51.) More related education would compensate for fewer years of work experience (and vice versa). (Ex-1003 ¶¶50-51.) Pet. 4–5. This definition was adopted in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 13. Patent Owner does not dispute the finding. PO Resp. 5–6. For the purpose of our Decision, we maintain the finding made in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 15

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

    “1. “a single caching agent” (claim 1) We note a construction issue from the ’1344 IPR where we construed a “single caching agent,” which is recited in claim 1 here. ’1344 IPR Final Decision, 16–18. We concluded that a “‘single caching agent’ means ‘one caching agent for the processor, which may be formed from distributed portions.’” Id. at 18. We adopted that construction in our Institution Decision in this case. Inst. Dec. 15.” slip op. at 16

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

    “2. Remaining claim terms Independent claims 11 and 16 include different language as to “caching agent.” Claim 11 recites “a caching agent.” Ex. 1001, 8:18. Claim 16 similarly recites “a first caching agent.” Id. at 8:47–48. Neither claims 11 or 16 includes claim 1’s recitation of “distributed portions. The “caching agent” limitations of claims 11 and 16, are not at issue. Accordingly, no construction is necessary.” slip op. at 18

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action. Pet. Br. 2. Further, Petitioner alleges the ’1344 Final Decision was not appealed by Patent Owner and is therefore a basis for issue preclusion. Id. (citing Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC, 926 F.3d 1306, 1311–12 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,984,228 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,984,228
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2022-01151 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1, 24, and 25 unpatentable as obvious over Buruganahalli; the copying evidence did not outweigh the strong obviousness showing.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Scope on Remand On remand, the panel here will not address issues outside the scope of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., 814 F. App’x 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board is bound by the terms of a mandate issued by an appellate court. Aydin Corp. v. Widnall, 121 F.3d 726, 1997 WL 413329, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ‘Unless remanded by [an appellate] court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.’ Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”). The sole issue on remand is whether “the evidence of copying” is sufficient to overcome the obviousness ground of unpatentability over Buruganahalli. Centripetal Networks, 19–20. We restate portions of the former Final Written Decision, as an aid to the reader, but substantially incorporate the analysis of the prior Decision below. C.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner

    “given to the Eastern District of Virginia court’s opinion because it was later vacated. The district court considered all of the Read factors (applying Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826-827 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), of which only the first factor is directed to deliberate copying, although factors 2 and 9 bear indirectly on the issue of copying. The district court determined that “[t]he fact that Cisco released products with Centripetal’s functionality within a year of these meetings goes beyond mere coincidence. Therefore, the fact that Cisco’s system mirrors the functionality of the Centripetal patents is compelling evidence that damages should be enhanced for copying.” Ex. 1027, 157. Without more, it is difficult to evaluate the processes that the district court employed to reach its determination. As the Federal Circuit instructed, we need “not [] go searching throughout the entire litigation record to find the evidence of copying, but [we have] an obligation to consider the specific evidence that was put before” us. Centripetal Networks, 19. We continue to determine that the vacated finding of the district court should be provided little weight, especially in view of the strong case of obviousness discussed above.” slip op. at 40

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner

    “need and industry recognition for the technology claimed in the ‘856 Patent because it describes the problem of detecting threats in encrypted traffic as ‘unsolvable.’” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 1027, 64). Given that this is a press release by a company announcing that company’s new commercial product, however, we 8 The concurrence reevaluates Patent Owner’s evidence of industry praise and nexus, but we deem such considerations outside the remit of the Federal Circuit’s remand. are reluctant to give the “unsolvable” characterization much weight, as it may amount to puffery. But beyond that, it appears that the problem identified as “unsolvable” in the press release––“detect[ing] known attack signatures even in encrypted traffic”––had, in fact, already been solved in Buruganahalli, using the very same hello message, flow correlation, and man-in-the-middle techniques described in the ‘856 Patent. We thus cannot say that the press release identifies a long-felt need that was actually unsolved. See ZUP, 896 F.3d at 1374 (explaining that “[w]here the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention are . . . minimal . . . it cannot be said that any long-felt need was unsolved”) (quoting Geo. M. Martin Co. v. All. Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (first alteration in original)).” slip op. at 35

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

    “The District Court did not provide an element-by-element analysis of how the claims of the ‘856 Patent cover this description. See Ex. 1027, 41. However, from the description, we understand the Court to have concluded that the system receives rules, identifies a set of packets as part of a flow using the NetFlow logs, “determines” that encrypted packets in the flow match known malicious signatures based on unencrypted data in other packets (e.g., data in the SNI), and then filters the flow based in a URI (e.g., that from the SNI), routing it to the null interface. The Court does not describe how the system “determines” that encrypted packets match known malicious signatures based on information in unencrypted packets, but we assume that is done as in the ‘856 Patent, by correlation, i.e., an encrypted packet is “determined” to match a threat indicator if it is in the same flow as a packet with unencrypted information that matches the threat indicator.10 With that understanding, we conclude that the allegedly infringing system operates, as least at the level described in the court’s decision, in the same way Buruganahalli’s system operates, filtering encrypted packets due to their presence in a flow that includes packets with unencrypted data, such as in a handshaking packet. It follows that Patent Owner is unable to establish a nexus, because “[w]here the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1330 10 See Ex. 1001, 9:3–10 (explaining that, at step 17, rule gate 120 may “determine . . . that the packets comprise data corresponding to the network-threat indicators, for example, by correlating the packets with one or more packets previously determined . . . to comprise data corresponding to the network-threat indicators based on data stored in [the] logs”).” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,917,856
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2022-01199 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1, 24, and 25 unpatentable as obvious over Buruganahalli; the copying evidence did not outweigh the strong obviousness showing.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Scope on Remand On remand, the panel here will not address issues outside the scope of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., 814 F. App’x 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board is bound by the terms of a mandate issued by an appellate court. Aydin Corp. v. Widnall, 121 F.3d 726, 1997 WL 413329, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ‘Unless remanded by [an appellate] court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.’ Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”). The sole issue on remand is whether “the evidence of copying” is sufficient to overcome the obviousness ground of unpatentability over Buruganahalli. Centripetal Networks, 19–20. We restate portions of the former Final Written Decision, as an aid to the reader, but substantially incorporate the analysis of the prior Decision below. C.” slip op. at 4

  • Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied

    “not object to a new panel of APJs hearing this case if remanded.” Id. at 20. As such, Patent Owner requested Director Review (Paper 74), asking that the Director “de-institute,” based on an abuse of discretion. The Director (Paper 75) denied the request and directed the Board to assign a new panel on remand (see Papers 76, 77). B.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in The Art We adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the prior Decision. See Decision 25. F.” slip op. at 13

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

    “This argument is unpersuasive because Buruganahalli uses rules/policies to filter encrypted packets by correlating them with handshaking packets that have unencrypted data, in the same way that is done in the ‘856 Patent. The only “filtering step” in the patent that “use[s] rules to filter encrypted packets without decryption” (PO Resp. 20) is the hello message approach used, for example, at steps 19 and 23 (see id.), which is clearly disclosed in Buruganahalli.7 As explained above, the ‘856 Patent does not describe applying rules to encrypted packets. Instead, it describes (a) filtering encrypted packets by correlating them with unencrypted data in other packets and (b) by decrypting the packets and applying the rules that are recited in the claims to unencrypted data. As also explained above, the amendment added the rules of step 22, which are applied to decrypted data, to a claim that was drafted to cover filtering of encrypted packets. However, among the criteria used in the filtering performed at step 22 is a “uniform resource identifier (URI),” which, we conclude, covers Buruganahalli’s “domain name.” Thus, despite the error made during prosecution, the claims that issued cover Buruganahalli’s method of determining that a session should be filtered based on a domain name in unencrypted handshake data.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,917,856
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2022-00182 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under § 103 over Buruganahalli; the evidence of copying does not outweigh the strong obviousness showing.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Scope on Remand On remand, the panel here will not address issues outside the scope of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., 814 F. App’x 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board is bound by the terms of a mandate issued by an appellate court. Aydin Corp. v. Widnall, 121 F.3d 726, 1997 WL 413329, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ‘Unless remanded by [an appellate] court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.’ Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”). The sole issue on remand is whether “the evidence of copying” is sufficient to overcome the obviousness ground of unpatentability over Buruganahalli. Centripetal Networks, 19–20. We restate portions of the former Final Written Decision, as an aid to the reader, but substantially incorporate the analysis of the prior Decision below. C.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentable

    “given to the Eastern District of Virginia court’s opinion because it was later vacated. The district court considered all of the Read factors (applying Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826-827 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), of which only the first factor is directed to deliberate copying, although factors 2 and 9 bear indirectly on the issue of copying. The district court determined that “[t]he fact that Cisco released products with Centripetal’s functionality within a year of these meetings goes beyond mere coincidence. Therefore, the fact that Cisco’s system mirrors the functionality of the Centripetal patents is compelling evidence that damages should be enhanced for copying.” Ex. 1027, 157. Without more, it is difficult to evaluate the processes that the district court employed to reach its determination. As the Federal Circuit instructed, we need “not [] go searching throughout the entire litigation record to find the evidence of copying, but [we have] an obligation to consider the specific evidence that was put before” us. Centripetal Networks, 19. We continue to determine that the vacated finding of the district court should be provided little weight, especially in view of the strong case of obviousness discussed above. Examination of Aaron Striegel We also do not find the Aaron Striegel’s testimony to be particularly persuasive. The testimony provides statements such as “I found evidence that it could be plausible,” “[s]o we can see the timeline is very plausible,” and “I found it very plausible that indeed that this technology could have made its way into these respective accused products.” Ex. 1029, 31:12–32:3. This testimony suggests the possibility of copying but does not demonstrate actual evidence of copying. At most, this testimony indicates that further consideration of the underlying evidence is warranted, but does little to support an ultimate finding of copying. Again, even taking this testimony as evidence of copying, it still must stand up against the strong case of obviousness discussed above.” slip op. at 40

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

    “The District Court did not provide an element-by-element analysis of how the claims of the ‘856 Patent cover this description. See Ex. 1027, 41. However, from the description, we understand the Court to have concluded that the system receives rules, identifies a set of packets as part of a flow using the NetFlow logs, “determines” that encrypted packets in the flow match known malicious signatures based on unencrypted data in other packets (e.g., data in the SNI), and then filters the flow based in a URI (e.g., that from the SNI), routing it to the null interface. The Court does not describe how the system “determines” that encrypted packets match known malicious signatures based on information in unencrypted packets, but we assume that is done as in the ‘856 Patent, by correlation, i.e., an encrypted packet is “determined” to match a threat indicator if it is in the same flow as a packet with unencrypted information that matches the threat indicator.10 With that understanding, we conclude that the allegedly infringing system operates, as least at the level described in the court’s decision, in the same way Buruganahalli’s system operates, filtering encrypted packets due to their presence in a flow that includes packets with unencrypted data, such as in a handshaking packet. It follows that Patent Owner is unable to establish a nexus, because “[w]here the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1330” slip op. at 38

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersDecided for petitioner

    “need and industry recognition for the technology claimed in the ‘856 Patent because it describes the problem of detecting threats in encrypted traffic as ‘unsolvable.’” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 1027, 64). Given that this is a press release by a company announcing that company’s new commercial product, however, we 8 The concurrence reevaluates Patent Owner’s evidence of industry praise and nexus, but we deem such considerations outside the remit of the Federal Circuit’s remand. are reluctant to give the “unsolvable” characterization much weight, as it may amount to puffery. But beyond that, it appears that the problem identified as “unsolvable” in the press release––“detect[ing] known attack signatures even in encrypted traffic”––had, in fact, already been solved in Buruganahalli, using the very same hello message, flow correlation, and man-in-the-middle techniques described in the ‘856 Patent. We thus cannot say that the press release identifies a long-felt need that was actually unsolved. See ZUP, 896 F.3d at 1374 (explaining that “[w]here the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention are . . . minimal . . . it cannot be said that any long-felt need was unsolved”) (quoting Geo. M. Martin Co. v. All. Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (first alteration in original)).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,917,856
• Apple Inc. v. DH International Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2026 · IPR2025-00172 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Suga and Gorsuch; the Board denied Patent Owner’s motion to exclude.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner also asserts prejudice for “not knowing” which Suga Exhibit “the Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert is relying on (see Exhibit 1021 and 1022),” without further explanation. Mot. Reply 6. Exhibit 1022 is a dictionary definition of “node.” How this relates to Patent Owner’s argument of prejudice is not explained. Id. at 5–6. The Board perceives no difficulty following Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, which cite Suga Exhibit 1005, including the testimony of Dr. Buehrer regarding the English language translation of Suga, which is identical in Exhibits 1005 and 1017. Patent Owner, moreover, opted not to depose Dr. Buehrer, did not file a deposition transcript of Dr. Buehrer in this proceeding, and does not allege any difference or substantive deficiency in the English language translation in Suga Exhibits 1005 and 1017, which are identical. We fail to see any prejudice to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 84

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

    “d. Conclusion for Claim 1 For the reasons given above, we determine the Petition establishes by” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 9,022,294 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,022,294
• BMW Of North America, LLC v. Foras Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01347 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach switching the boot-processor role to a spare processor.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art 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.” slip op. at 17

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

    “processor” to the spare processor, we determine that the claim is describing this transfer of identification of “boot processor,” which is required when transferring a boot processor’s functions to a spare because of the “problems [that] arise in attempting to idle (or eject) the boot processor.” Id. at 6:25– 27. This is confirmed by the language of limitation [1d], stating that the switching of the role of boot processor involves “changing a system identifier of the spare processor to that of the boot processor.” Thus, the firmware and operating system exchange this information identifying the boot processor, which is described in the specification as a device tree. See, e.g., id. at 13:21–35. The ’302 patent makes clear that accurate identification of which processor is the boot processor remains critical during runtime. See, e.g., id. at 6:25–27. Thus, Patent Owner is correct in requiring the system to have a way to identify the boot processor and to transfer this identification during runtime. However, as made clear in the embodiments described in the ’302 patent discussed above, this identification is for runtime purposes to accommodate runtime problems, not for booting purposes. Although Patent Owner may be correct that a function of the boot processor is to boot the system (PO Sur-reply 5), the problem identified in the ’302 patent is a problem relating to the runtime reassignment of the boot processor identity, to address a runtime need to identify the boot processor. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 11:6–9. Accordingly, based on our analysis of the claims and specification, we determine that “switching the role of boot processor to a spare processor without shutting down the system’s operating system” means causing the system to identify the spare processor as the boot processor (e.g., in a device tree), which then causes the spare processor to appear as the boot processor to the system during runtime. Ex. 1001, 6:25–41, 11:4–18 (describing why boot processors are treated differently even after the boot process has completed); compare id. at 9:65–11:3 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a non-boot processor without using a spare), with id. at 11:4–43 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a boot processor using a spare because boot processors, during runtime, need special treatment); see also 14:66–15:21 (emphasizing that spares are only needed for recovering boot processors). We construe switching a “role of boot processor” to mean transferring an identification in the system of which processor is the boot processor. This construction comports with the embodiments described in the specification. We do not adopt an additional requirement that this procedure also requires designating which processor will boot the system in the next reboot, which is not disclosed in the specification.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “may swap processors that are failing, and perform the necessary bookkeeping to keep the operating system informed as to how to address the processors available, nothing in the Petition persuasively explains whether this generic processor swapping switches the boot processor role. As we explained in our claim construction section, the term “boot processor” is not merely a label of convenience to describe the processor that happened to have earlier booted the system. The role of boot processor is specifically switched to the spare; it is a piece of information tracked by the system. As we explain below, Petitioner does not adequately address the transfer of this information to make the system aware of which processor has the boot processor role. Petitioner asserts that “the BSP flag” of the IA-32 system is used to “determine whether a processor is the boot processor.” Pet. 17–18. Petitioner here is relying on a register used in IA-32 processors to identify whether or not they are the boot processor. This register is used during booting so that only the boot processor boots the system. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 238–40, 710. This register does not appear to serve any further role, and Petitioner offers no persuasive evidence or argument that the processor register flag is exposed or copied to the operating system or APIC table. Petitioner’s proposed combination does not involve updating this register, nor does Petitioner explain how, even if the register were updated, it would meet the “switching” a “role of boot processor” in limitation [1d].” slip op. at 32

  • ExcludeOther

    “The USPTO has established Rules for objecting to and challenging evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. This process sets various timeframes and permits briefing and curative actions, all of which are designed to crystallize 5 We follow the parties’ convention of citing to the later-added “Page X of Y” pagination rather than the native pagination. the issues and ensure a full and fair opportunity for the parties to be heard. See id. In this instance, Patent Owner’s evidentiary arguments regarding Exhibits 1008 and 1028 are untimely. Accordingly, we will not exclude Exhibits 1008 or 1028 on the basis of their authenticity, admissibility, or for any reason that should have been raised under the proper procedures. See, e.g., PO Resp. 7–8; PO Sur-reply 7–8; see also Pet. Reply 11 (asserting that “Patent Owner has not filed any objection to or a motion to exclude these references”). We consider Petitioner’s citations to these documents in our prior art analysis below. Notwithstanding, as is clear from our patentability analysis below, Exhibits 1008 and 1028 do not serve to demonstrate the unpatentability of any claim.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,624,302 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,624,302
• BMW Of North America, LLC v. Foras Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01346 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 were not shown unpatentable because the prior-art combinations did not establish transfer of the role of boot processor during system runtime.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner asserts that: A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’781 patent would have been a person with at least a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or equivalent, and at least two years of prior work experience with computer architecture, including experience relating to fault tolerant computer architecture, as of the earliest priority date of the ’781 patent—October 25, 2004. If a person did not have a bachelor’s degree, additional relevant and practical experience with fault tolerant computer systems could provide an acceptable substitute. Likewise, further education beyond a bachelor’s degree could compensate for a deficiency in practical experience. See EX2004, Declaration of Nigel A. Jones (“Jones”), ¶ 26. PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner further notes that its position is “similar, but not identical to, Petitioner’s [position]” but that “the analysis [of the claims] is identical for both proposed determinations.” Id. We agree that our analysis would not differ based on choosing one proposed level of skill over the other, but as the losing party, we select Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Accordingly, based on our analysis of the claims and specification, we determine that “logic . . . for transferring, during system runtime, the role of boot processor” means logic that causes the system to identify the spare processor as the boot processor (e.g., in a device tree) which then causes the spare processor to appear as the boot processor to the system during runtime. Ex. 1001, 5:39–55, 10:43–67 (describing why boot processors are treated differently even after the boot process has completed); compare id. at 9:37– 10:42 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a non-boot processor without using a spare), with id. at 10:43–11:42 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a boot processor using a spare because boot processors, during runtime, need special treatment); see also 15:21–42 (emphasizing that spares are only needed for recovering boot processors). We construe transferring a “role of boot processor” to mean transferring an identification in the system of which processor is the boot processor. This construction comports with the embodiments described in the specification. We do not adopt an additional requirement that this procedure also requires designating which processor will boot the system in the next reboot, which is not disclosed in the specification.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the clear support in the specification for the above interpretation, we see no need to resort to extrinsic evidence. Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“If the meaning of a claim term is clear from the intrinsic evidence, there is no reason to resort to extrinsic evidence.”) (citing Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., 823 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Extrinsic evidence may not be used ‘to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.’” (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324)). In general, the cited portions of testimony from the declarants from both parties in the briefs do little more than point to the portions of the ’781 patent described above or argue about what a boot processor does during booting. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2–8. The specification makes clear that it is focused on the role of boot processor during runtime because of problems encountered during runtime; it is not focused on the boot processor during booting. Ex. 1001, 5:39–55, 10:43–67. Thus, the testimony about what a boot processor does during booting, or that the primary function of the boot processor is to boot, is not particularly pertinent, and does not undo the unambiguous discussion in the ’781 patent.” slip op. at 27

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “whether they are the boot processor or not (Ex. 1008, 238, 710), Petitioner does not explain how such information is exposed to the BIOS or operating system, nor how it is changed during runtime, after its purpose has been fulfilled. In sum, even if Petitioner’s proposed combination swaps the spare processor for the processor that booted the system, Petitioner’s proposed combination does not appear to transfer the role of boot processor to the spare processor. At best, Petitioner’s proposed combination transfers the tasks of one processor to another. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 15 (Fox describing its disclosure as “updat[ing] the ‘active’ processor list” and “[re-]allocat[ing] the threads that were running on the failing processor”), 46 (transferring “processes (instructions, threads, etc.) initially allocated to the failing processor” to the spare processor)). Of the art of record, we are only aware of the ’781 patent transferring a designation of which processor is the boot processor during the swap to a spare processor. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:43– 55, 11:10–12, 16:19–21, 17:51–55; claims 1, 9, 16, 25. In conclusion, we find that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, how the prior art teaches “transferring” a “role of boot processor” as required by limitation 1[c].” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 7,627,781 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,627,781

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.