- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 27, 2026 · IPR2024-00907 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8–12, and 14–25 are unpatentable as obvious; the majority finds the asserted combinations persuasive despite 3GPP-Spec not qualifying as prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“accessibility. A document hosted on the official standards body website, reachable through intuitive navigation from the homepage using the descriptive titles to the reference, is sufficient to demonstrate the BT-Spec was publicly accessible. See M&K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 985 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“The law regarding public accessibility is not as restrictive as M&K suggests—a website’s landing page is not required to have search functionality. Instead, given the prominence of JCT-VC, the dispositive question is whether interested users of the JCT-VC website could have located Park and Zhou through reasonable diligence.”). The Bluetooth SIG website itself functioned as a well-known, organized repository that a skilled artisan would naturally consult when researching Bluetooth technology. See id. at 1382 (“The Board found that the documents in question on the meeting pages of the JCT-VC website were effectively indexed by subject matter in light of the title-search functionality and the fact that Park and Zhou featured descriptive titles. That finding supports the Board’s conclusion that Park and Zhou were publicly accessible.”).” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (alteration in original)). This search for answers about whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention applies “an expansive and flexible approach.” Id. at 415. Whether a patent claiming the combination of prior art elements would have been obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at 417. Reaching this conclusion, however, requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention. Id.” slip op. at 14
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“IV. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE The party moving to exclude evidence bears the burden of proof to” slip op. at 158
Patent outcomesUS 10,129,590 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,129,590 - The Boeing Company v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2025 · IPR2024-00761 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–24 not unpatentable because the asserted references did not show the glass element propagating a modified stress wave to generate tensile stress at the interface.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’684 patent “would have had an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering or a related field, and at least five years of experience using laser systems to characterize and test mechanical behavior in materials” and that “[m]ore education may supplement practical experience or vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38). Patent Owner” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for patent owner
“Both parties maintain that no claim term needs to be construed. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40); PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner, however, provides an express construction for limitation [1.d] of independent claim 1 and the similar limitation of independent claim 13, namely limitation [13.c]. PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 25). To resolve the controversy before us, we determine that these limitations require express construction. 1. “the glass element is configured to propagate and modify a stress wave to the coating/substrate interface to generate a tensile stress between the substrate and the coating” (limitation [1.d]) and “propagating and modifying a stress wave through the glass element to the coating/substrate interface to generate a tensile force between the substrate and the coating” (limitation [13.c]) Patent Owner argues these limitations mean “changing the profile of the laser generated compressive wave and propagating the wave profile as modified to the free surface of the coating, which upon reflection from the free surface as a tension wave generates a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 25). Petitioner does not refute this proposed construction and, during the oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it agrees with the proposed construction. Tr. 8:16–9:12. We so no reason to depart from the parties agreed-upon construction of limitations [1.d] and [13.c]. Accordingly, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt the parties’ construction of limitations [1.d] and [13.c].” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“a shock in the compression wave in the fused silica substrate. Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that Wang-Dissertation’s fused silica substrate modifies the compression waveform, we would not be persuaded that the fused silica substrate propagates the modified wave to the free surface of the coating, which upon reflection from the free surface as a tension wave generates a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface, as limitation [1.d] requires. In view of the presence of tension-wave-1 in Wang-Dissertation’s experiments, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated persuasively that the fused silica substrate propagates a modified stress wave to the free surface of the coating to generate a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface. Also, we find credible Dr. Gupta’s unrebutted testimony that any modified compression wave would attenuate in the substrate and not propagate to the free surface coating or generate a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface. Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 93–98. Petitioner does not dispute that the experiments in Wang-Dissertation include tension-wave-1. See Ex. 1005, 65 (“The experimental picture is complicated somewhat by the presence of a tensile wave, reflected from the back of the confining layer.”). Nor does Petitioner dispute that Wang-Dissertation discloses that the tension-wave-1 propagates faster than the compression-wave-1 and eventually overtakes compression-wave-1. See id. at 65–66 (“Being tensile, it propagates faster that the peak compressive stress, and faster than the low stress tail of the main pulse. It eventually overtakes the compressive pulse and linear dissipative mechanisms govern the final thickness of the shock.”). Rather, Petitioner relies on Dr. Wang’s testimony regarding the timing of the waves through the sample and argues that tension-wave-1 does not overtake compression-wave-1 in the fused silica substrate. Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1038 ¶ 5). Dr. Wang testifies that the peak stress from tension-wave-1 is about 2 ns behind the peak of compression-wave-1 and will not reach the interface before the reflected tensile peak of compression-wave-1 reaches the interface in 0.3 ns. Ex. 1038 ¶ 5. However, as Dr. Gupta persuasively explains, the delay between tension-wave-1 and compression-wave-1 depends on the properties of the confining layer, and Wang-Dissertation acknowledges that these properties are not well controlled. Ex. 2011 ¶ 54; see also Ex. 1005, 65 (“The surface properties of that confining layer are not well controlled.”).” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“claimed subject matter. Pet. 35–38; Pet. Reply 23–24. In doing so, Petitioner continues to rely on Wang-Dissertation to disclose limitation [1.d] of independent claim 1 and limitation [13.c] of independent claim 13. Pet. 35–38; Pet. Reply 23–24. Petitioner does not put forth any further obviousness rationale in this ground based on Wang-Dissertation for teaching these limitations. For the same reasons discussed in sections II.C.2–3, Petitioner has not persuaded us that Wang-Dissertation teaches or suggests limitations [1.d] and [13.c]. Thus, Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Wang-Dissertation renders obvious the subject matter set forth in claims 4, 6, 9, 15, 17, 20, 23, and 24, which depend from independent claims 1 and 13.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,487,684 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,487,684 - Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00251 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because neither asserted obviousness combination showed a reasonable likelihood of success, chiefly due to unsupported webserver teachings and motivation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“c. Analysis We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s rationale for adding a facilitator- type webserver to the Ellis–Spivey combination based on “POSA’s Knowledge.” First, Petitioner’s combination of Spivey with Ellis is already allegedly based on improving latency issues via the incorporation of Spivey’s LDSD and MQSD in Ellis’s system. See Pet. 22–24. Petitioner touts that this modification would result in reduced latency to a time period “at least two orders of magnitude shorter than conventional time periods of legacy devices.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 96). But the Petition does not establish whether this latency improvement would or could be maintained when adding a separate webserver, as it has proposed. And Dr. Rubin testifies that the inclusion of an additional webserver—an additional component—is likely to create latency insofar as it must receive, process, and/or handle data. Ex. 2001 ¶ 305. We are persuaded by Dr. Rubin’s testimony, and we find that adding a webserver to Petitioner’s existing Ellis– Spivey combination tends to undermine Petitioner’s foundational rationale for combining these references, which is the reduction of latency. See Pet. 23.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Third, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 49) that Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have added a facilitator-type webserver to the Ellis–Spivey combination when neither reference teaches or suggests a webserver for facilitating communication between a client and a socket server. Dr. Wicker’s supporting testimony stresses that “webservers were well-known components in streaming systems that were useful for facilitating communication between client devices and socket servers, and client devices and media sources.” Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 128–132. But “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner fails to provide any persuasive reason with a rational underpinning why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to add a webserver to the existing Ellis–Spivey combination.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The differences between the parties’ definitions are minor, as recognized by Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 104), and we do not discern any meaningful differences based on the preliminary record. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’088 patent and the asserted prior art. Notwithstanding, we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 8. Petitioner also argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “socket” is “a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first event information is provided to a VCD [viewer client device].” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 163). Thus, Petitioner argues that a “first event socket corresponding to the first event information” is “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to VCDs.” Id. Patent Owner states that “[e]xcept for the ‘socket’ term for which Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s construction . . . for purposes of [its] preliminary response, Patent Owner agrees that no terms require construction and construes all other terms consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., 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 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,871,088 - Ubiquiti Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01290 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“interview to incorporate prosecution dependent claim 2 into prosecution claim 1 and cancel prosecution dependent claim 3. See § I.F, supra. We determine that this agreement and the corresponding amendment constitutes a clear disavowal of subject matter that supports Patent Owner’s construction. Prosecution claim 2 required that the second communication frame follow the first communication frame after a SIFS (corresponding to Figure 5 of the ’122 patent), while prosecution claim 3 required that there be a SIFS and an intervening response between the first and second communication frames (corresponding to the embodiments of Figures 3 and 4 of the ’122 patent). Before the amendment, original claim 1 included both of these embodiments, but the incorporation of prosecution claim 2 into prosecution claim 1 and the cancellation of prosecution claim 3 limited issued claim 1 to only the embodiment of prosecution claim 2. Because Larsson disclosed an intervening response to the first communication frame before the second communication frame, the clear import of the amendment was to limit claim 1 to the embodiment where the second communication frame follows immediately after the SIFS in order to distinguish claim 1 from Larsson. Indeed, in the Reasons for Allowance, the examiner explained that claim 1 distinguishes over the prior art (including Larsson) because “[t]he prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest ‘receiv[ing] the second communication frame after a short inter frame space (SIFS) that follows the first communication frame,’” as added from prosecution claim 2. Ex. 1002, 47. If, as Petitioner argues, prosecution claim 2 was broad enough to cover the embodiment of prosecution claim 3, then the amendment would have served no apparent purpose. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that “[t]here is no other plausible explanation for why, when faced with Larsson’s disclosure of an intervening response, the Examiner initiated an interview to incorporate the SIFS limitation of dependent claim 2 into claim 1, and cancel dependent claim 3, which, like Larsson, included an intervening response.” See Prelim. Sur-reply 1–2.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“of the alleged invention would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in wireless communications standards and/or product development.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–26). Petitioner also states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not advance a proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp.; Prelim. Sur-reply. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’122 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to show that Gu teaches that “the second communication frame follows after a short inter frame space (SIFS) after the first communication frame with the transmit announcement indication.” Ex. 1001, 7:64–67. As discussed above, we construe this limitation to require that “the second communication frame follows substantially immediately after the first communication frame (without any intervening response to the first communication frame),” as Patent Owner proposes. See § II.A, supra. Petitioner has not shown that Gu meets this construction because Gu includes an intervening response between the first and second communication frames. Consequently, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Gu and Trainin.” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2024). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314; see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on any grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,594,122 - Mianyang Boe Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. / Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01075 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to show claims 1–6, 10, 12, 17–19, 21–23, 40–47, 51, and 52 unpatentable because the cited art did not teach or suggest a pixel defining layer.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we again adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. It is supported by the testimony of Dr. Pattison, and appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). We find Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill to be imprecise, because Patent Owner does not specify the amount of experience possessed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. The unbounded reference to “experience” is vague and overly broad, as it could mean 1 year of experience or over 30 years of experience, for example. In addition, the ’578 patent is directed to “a pixel arrangement structure of an (OLED) [organic light emitting diode] display” (Ex. 1001, 1:22–23), whereas Patent Owner’s proposed experience is tied to “active-matrix displays.” PO Resp. 5. Given that the field of OLED displays includes both passive and active matrix designs (see generally Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 40–56), we see no reason to restrict the relevant experience to active matrix displays. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner has failed to show that the cited art teaches or suggests a “pixel defining layer” as recited. Neither party in this proceeding or in the ITC Investigation argued that “pixel defining layer” as recited in the challenged claims required construction, and neither party presented any arguments regarding the construction or meaning of this term.6 Pet. 13; PO Resp. 4–5. 5 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) requires that a petition contain a statement identifying how a challenged claim is to be construed. 6 In our Decision instituting trial, we stated that “[i]f either party contends that explicit claim construction is necessary in order to make a final determination whether or not any challenged claim is unpatentable based on the arguments and evidence presented, it should clearly explain why during We give the term “pixel defining layer” as recited its plain and ordinary meaning. For purposes of this decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., 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))). D. Petitioner Has Not Shown That the Cited Art Teaches or Suggests All the” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“or suggestion in Matthies of a pixel defining layer, because there is none.” PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 187); see also PO Sur-reply 15–17. Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have understood that Matthies employs (or at least could obviously employ) the claimed ‘pixel defining layer.’” Pet. 23. An allegation that a skilled artisan would have understood that the prior art “could obviously” be modified to include an element of the claimed invention does not establish that the prior art teaches or suggests such recited element. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“require for the same reasons set forth above.”). And, in discussing motivation to combine the teachings of Matthies and Yamada, Petitioner articulates no reasoning to support modifying Matthies’ structure based on Yamada to yield a “pixel defining layer.” See Pet. 69–75. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Petition failed to identify any teaching or suggestion in Matthies of a pixel defining layer, because there is none.” PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 187); see also PO Sur-reply 15–17. Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have understood that Matthies employs (or at least could obviously employ) the claimed ‘pixel defining layer.’” Pet. 23. An allegation that a skilled artisan would have understood that the prior art “could obviously” be modified to include an element of the claimed invention does not establish that the prior art teaches or suggests such recited element. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 11,594,578 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,594,578 - Mianyang Boe Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. / Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-00987 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable because the Phan-based challenge did not establish its limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). “[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“9 In its Opposition to Petitioner’s first motion to strike, which was filed after the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner implies that the teardown images in the Response speak for themselves and, as such, are entitled to a presumption of nexus. See 1st Strike Opp. 3–4; see also Tr. 102:19–103:15 (similar argument by Patent Owner’s counsel at the oral hearing). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner did not assert an entitlement to a presumption of nexus in the Response, and that Patent Owner’s Opposition is an improper vehicle to introduce such an argument. 1st Strike Reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner did not address in the Response whether the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra smartphone is coextensive with the claims of the ’803 patent. See id.; Reply 21. Accordingly, we decline to consider any argument that Patent Owner is entitled to a presumption of nexus.” slip op. at 63
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, we accord Patent Owner’s evidence of long-felt” slip op. at 70
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part
“9 In its Opposition to Petitioner’s first motion to strike, which was filed after the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner implies that the teardown images in the Response speak for themselves and, as such, are entitled to a presumption of nexus. See 1st Strike Opp. 3–4; see also Tr. 102:19–103:15 (similar argument by Patent Owner’s counsel at the oral hearing). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner did not assert an entitlement to a presumption of nexus in the Response, and that Patent Owner’s Opposition is an improper vehicle to introduce such an argument. 1st Strike Reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner did not address in the Response whether the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra smartphone is coextensive with the claims of the ’803 patent. See id.; Reply 21. Accordingly, we decline to consider any argument that Patent Owner is entitled to a presumption of nexus.” slip op. at 63
Patent outcomesUS 9,818,803 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,818,803 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / Fortinet, Inc. v. Infoexpress Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00678 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that either Krantz alone or Krantz and Herrmann rendered them obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. As noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 27), claim 1 separately recites (1) “an authentication module” that seeks access based on “authentication information” and (2) a “gatekeeper” that “formulate[s] an audit request” and evaluates whether to approve access based on a response to the audit request. The fact that authentication can be a part of a security policy audit (see Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1301, 11:67–12:6)) does not change the fact that claim 1 recites separate sets of limitations for authentication and auditing that Petitioner must account for in its unpatentability contentions.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering and at least three years of experience in networking operating systems and cybersecurity.” Prelim. Resp. 1. Alternatively, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a master’s degree in one of the foregoing and at least two years of experience in the aforementioned fields.” Id. at 2. Patent Owner does not cite any evidence supporting its assessment of the level of ordinary skill. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’645 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would find the challenged claims unpatentable under any interpretation consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning in the context of the [’645 patent],” so we “need not expressly construe the claim terms.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner also argues that we should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms. Prelim. Resp. 6. Nonetheless, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner deviates from the plain and ordinary meaning of certain limitations. Id. at 6– 7. Thus, Patent Owner puts forth its understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning for the following recitations: “configure an access point in response to approval of the device by the gatekeeper” and “device information received from the device in response to the audit request.” Id. at 7–13. Based on the present record, we need not expressly construe any claim terms in order to render the instant Decision. See, e.g., 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 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,117,645 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / Fortinet, Inc. v. Infoexpress Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00540 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4–10, 13, 16, 18, and 19 were obvious over Krantz alone or Krantz and Herrmann.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of relevant experience in networking and network security, and related fields.” Pet. 4. Petitioner also asserts that “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering and at least three years of experience in networking operating systems and cybersecurity.” Prelim. Resp. 1–2. Alternatively, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a master’s degree in one of the foregoing and at least two years of experience in the aforementioned fields.” Id. at 2. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’350 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner argues that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would find the challenged claims unpatentable under any interpretation consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning in the context of the [’350 patent],” so we “need not expressly construe the claim terms.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner argues to the contrary that we should construe the phrase “reconfiguring the communication port” as “to change the access point itself [rather than something else] in a way that the checked device is able to access the less-restricted portion of the protected network.” Prelim. Resp. 7–9. Patent Owner also argues that we should construe the phrases “audit data pertaining to a device” and “auditing the device in accordance with a security policy” as “requir[ing] that the ‘audit data’ and ‘auditing’ . . . be expressly about the device” rather that “the user.” Id. at 9–12. As discussed below, we are able to determine whether to institute review without resolving the construction of any claim terms. Accordingly, we need not and do not construe any terms expressly. 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 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. The ’350 patent distinguishes between user authentication using a username and password and application of a security policy. Ex. 1101, 1:35–39 (“A first level of access control is achieved by requiring authentication of a user. This may be accomplished by requiring the user to enter a username and a password.”), 1:45–48 (“Reliance on mere user authentication includes several disadvantages. For example, there are no provisions to assure that an access device used by the authenticated user meets network security policies.”). Although the ’350 patent describes both user authentication and application of a security policy as being carried out by a gatekeeper, this is accomplished in separate process steps. Id. at 10:38–41 (“GateKeeper 225 authenticates a user, obtains audit data, and applies a security policy in an Authenticate User Step 440, an Obtain Audit Data Step 450 and an Apply Security Policy Step 460, respectively.”). Thus, we are not persuaded that, as Petitioner argues, user authentication in the ’350 patent constitutes the application of a security policy.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,347,350 - PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00117 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–13 on all petitioned grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, including anticipation of claim 1 by Nguyen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and any response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim, and we institute an inter partes review as to all challenged claims of the ’836 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“A reference qualifies as a printed publication only if it was publicly accessible before the effective filing date of the challenged patent. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); M & K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 985 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Public accessibility “has been called the touch-stone” in determining whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication. M & K Holdings, 985 F.3d at 1379 (quoting Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Id. (quotes and citations omitted).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“2. Independent Claim 1 a. Preamble Petitioner contends that Nguyen discloses the claim 1 preamble, which recites “an adapter for mating with optical fiber connectors.” Ex. 1001, 18:12. Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26–30, Figs. 1, 2). We find that Petitioner’s contention for the claim 1 preamble is adequate for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“2. Reasons to Combine Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to modify Nguyen’s adapter in two ways. Pet. 54. First, Petitioner asserts it would have been obvious to include “optical-fiber connectors that employ handles configured to remotely release connectors from the adapter” by replacing Nguyen’s connectors with Lee’s connectors. Pet. 54–56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 289–295). Second, Petitioner asserts it would have been obvious to include “a transverse wall that includes slots halfway between two ends of the adapter and sleeve holders that employ sockets to mate with cylindrically-shaped ferrules” by replacing Nguyen’s wall with Lee’s sleeve holders. Pet. 54, 56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 296–302). Petitioner provides several reasons for the first modification, including a desire for convenience, tightly packed fiber optic ferrules, ease of maintenance, and scalability. Pet. 54 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 289–290). According to Petitioner, these goals would be served because “Lee’s handle allows a user to disengage the latch arm further from the adapter” whereas “[t]he latch arms of Nguyen require a user to be closer to the adapter.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 289). Petitioner also provides reasons for the second modification, asserting that “Lee’s sleeve holders are easy to maintain because they are removable, able to snap into place, and coordinate with dust caps to maintain cleanliness, as opposed to Nguyen’s immobile wall.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 297). According to Petitioner, “a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Nguyen’s adapter to incorporate Lee’s sleeve holders and slots to provide a system that is easier to maintain.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 298–299). We find that Petitioner’s asserted rationale for modifying Nguyen in view of Lee is adequate for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,333,836 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Entangled Media, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00285 · APJ Donald E Daybell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Dropbox did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Conclusion as to Claim 1 Based on the present record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Havewala teaches at least the following limitations of claim 1: 1. “intercepting the request by a software client on the first device;” and 2. “determining by the software client if the file is physically located on the first device or if the file is a virtual file of a corresponding file physically stored on a second device by reviewing file metadata.” Petitioner does not identify any teachings from Adams that bear on these limitations. Therefore, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“At this juncture, the parties only appear to dispute the educational background in the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. The only evidence in the present record regarding the educational background consists of Dr. McDaniel’s declarations in this case and in the underlying litigation. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 21; Ex. 2001, 14–15. We agree with Patent Owner that both of these declarations support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had either a bachelor’s or a master’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering or a related degree. Prelim. Resp. 2–3. Moreover, Petitioner does not explain why a master’s degree is necessary. Thus, we revise Petitioner’s proposed definition to conform to Dr. McDaniel’s testimony. We additionally remove the qualifier “at least” from Petitioner’s proposed definition, because this qualifier introduces ambiguity. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we apply the following definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art: a POSITA would have been a person holding a bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering or a related degree, with two years of training or experience with networking and file systems. This definition appears to be consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references as well. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). We note, however, that our analysis below would not change even if we adopted Petitioner’s definition as stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Cir. 2017); Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner asserts that it “does not propose that any terms require construction.” Pet. 11. Similarly, Patent Owner asserts that it “does not propose that the Board expressly construe any claims.” Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“The instant limitation recites “intercepting the request,” which relies for its antecedent basis on the “accepting a request” limitation recited above. Therefore, this claim requires that the same “request” be both accepted and intercepted. See Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that definite articles such as “the” and “said” create anaphoric phrases that refer to the initial antecedent phrase, and do not alter the meaning of the antecedent “in the slightest”). Petitioner, however, fails to identify any “request” that is both “accepted” and limitation, Petitioner relies on the “open” message sent to the file system as the recited “request” that is accepted. Id. at 20–22. For the “intercepting the request” limitation, however, Petitioner relies on an error message sent back from the file system to the application as the recited “request” that is intercepted. Id. at 33. Thus, Petitioner points to two different features of Havewala for teaching the same required “request” in claim 1. This is fatally inconsistent. Therefore, Petitioner fails to adequately demonstrate that Havewala teaches that the same “request” is first accepted and then intercepted, as required by the claim. Even were we to overlook the inconsistency in Petitioner’s analysis, Petitioner still fails to establish that Havewala teaches the claimed “request to operate on a file.” Petitioner relies for this limitation on an error message generated by the file system as the claimed “request.” Pet. 33. This error message, however, is not a “request to operate on a file,” as claimed. This error message is instead a response generated by the file system to a request from the application or operating system to open a file. Ex. 1005 ¶ 64. The response indicates that the request cannot be fulfilled because the target file has no data. Id. Havewala discusses its messaging paradigm with reference to Figure 6, which is excerpted below: steps performed in reconstituting a ghosted file from the sink. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 27. This excerpt depicts steps 601, 603, and 605. At step 601, the file system 16 receives an open command from an application 30. Id. ¶ 67. In this step, the “file system . . . notes that the ghosted file 14 does not contain the removed data 20.” Id. ¶ 68. Then, after the open command has already been received and processed by Havewala’s file system, the file system returns an error at step 603. Id. at Fig. 6. This “returned error” is what is intercepted by the ghosting filter 26, at step 605. Id. ¶ 68, Fig. 6. Figure 6 of Havewala and the associated text at paragraphs 67 and 68 demonstrate that the error message that is intercepted by Havewala’s ghosting filter is not a request; instead, it is a response to the “open” request. Petitioner’s argument that an error message is the claimed “request” is therefore unsupported by the evidence of record.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,484,260
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.