• Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 27, 2026 · IPR2024-01310 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Remand

  On Director remand, the Board determined claims 1–15 unpatentable under § 103, including claims 1–11 over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “all Challenged Claims unpatentable and denying Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Paper 47 (“Original Final Decision”). Subsequently, Patent Owner filed a Request for Director Review and Petitioner filed an authorized Response thereto. Papers 48, 49. On July 29, 2026, the Director granted review, vacated-in-part the Original Final Decision, and remanded the case to the Board. Paper 50. In particular, the Director directed the Board “to consider Patent Owner’s arguments as to the webserver limitation in deciding whether Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 are unpatentable under Petitioner’s Ground 1B.” Id. at 4. We do so in this Final Written Decision on Remand (“Remand Decision”). See infra § III.E (Ground 1B). For completeness, we repeat herein our analysis in the Original Final Decision for all other grounds.” slip op. at 2

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

    “C. Claim Construction We construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In this context, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; see CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (There is “a ‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.”). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). Extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Petitioner contends that “[t]he claim terms of the ’218 [patent] should be given their plain and ordinary meaning” as understood by the relevant artisan. Pet. 6. Petitioner argues that the relevant artisan “would have understood a ‘socket’ to be a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first event information is provided to a [viewer client device] VCD.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 170). Petitioner argues that the relevant artisan also would have understood an “event socket,” in turn, to be “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to VCDs.” Id. Beyond such proposed plain meanings for “socket” and “event” slip op. at 14

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

    “(6) Conclusion as to Objective Indicia of Non- Obviousness For the foregoing reasons, although we have considered Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness, we accord it little weight, and find that it does not outweigh Petitioner’s strong countervailing evidence supporting a conclusion of obviousness.” slip op. at 53

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

    “engineer with substantial experience in Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols, including an understanding of relaytype and orchestrator-type webservers, would have considered the subject matter of claim 1 as a whole, including the webserver, to be obvious in light of the combined teachings of Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. Based on the context discussed above, and for the reasons provided above, we determine that the answer is yes. See Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corp., 28 F.4th 1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“That the proposed combination of [two references]—rather than one of the individual references—discloses the disputed claim limitations does not defeat the Board’s conclusion of obviousness. In this case, it is sufficient that [the relevant artisan] would have been motivated to combine the prior art in a way such that the combination discloses the claim limitations.”).” slip op. at 78

  Patent outcomesUS 11,039,218 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,039,218
• Aptiv Services US, LLC v. Microchip Technology, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 20, 2026 · IPR2024-00646 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over Al-Shyoukh, Ivanov, and Stanescu; the Board did not reach the alternative ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s proposal is most like Petitioner’s alternative proposal which would include a bachelor’s degree and two years of experience. However, Patent Owner does not provide a specific number of years of industry experience and Patent Owner would include mixed-signal IC design as an alternative to analog circuit design. We consider analog circuit design to be most pertinent to the problems and solution discussed in the ’074 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:15–2:44. In addition, we find credible Petitioner’s argument that an ordinarily skilled artisan with a bachelor’s degree would have had two years of experience, whereas Patent Owner’s proposal does not provide a specific number of years. Thus, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree and two years of experience in analog circuit design. Nevertheless, the outcome of our decision would be the same under either of the party’s proposals.” slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Because neither party has argued that the district-court constructions should be modified or elaborated for this proceeding, and the constructions appear reasonable, we adopt these constructions for this decision. We also take judicial notice of the district court’s Memorandum supporting the claim construction order. Ex. 3001.9” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that “gm boosting” is the only gm enhancement referred to in the ’074 patent, that the ’074 patent uses the terms “gm enhanced” and “gm-boost” synonymously, and that Patent Owner has failed to point to any credible intrinsic evidence of this alleged distinction. Although, “[i]n the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings, CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000), in this case there is evidence to the contrary. In particular, the ’074 patent never refers to “gm enhancement” as a function separate from “gm boosting.” Indeed, the transistors (368, 370, and 382) that Patent Owner identifies as performing the function of “gm enhancement” are disclosed as part of a “gm-boost stage.” Ex. 1001, 5:8–24. Patent Owner’s alleged separation of Figure 3B into distinct “gm boosting” and “gm enhancement” is not consistent with the intrinsic evidence and is based on the conclusory testimony of Dr. Taylor. Thus, based on the evidence of record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction distinguishing the terms “gm enhanced” and “gm-boost” in claim 1. Rather, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded these terms to be synonymous. We need not otherwise construe these two terms to resolve the contested issues in this proceeding. 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 12

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

    “We find Petitioner’s argument persuasive that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to follow Ivanov’s teachings to include an enable/disable function in Al-Shyoukh’s biasing circuit to limit that circuit’s standby current for reasons of power-efficiency. Pet. 25–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–68. The evidence of record also suggests that an enable/disable function was well known in the art and that it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to add such a function to a biasing circuit, taking into consideration any known tradeoffs. Pet. Reply 17–18; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60, 67–68; PO Resp. 13–14 (acknowledging that “any [person of ordinary skill in the art” would attest[ that] engineering is full of tradeoffs” and listing some of the known tradeoffs that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would need to consider”). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Al-Shyoukh, Rincon-Mora, or other references teach away from adding an enable/disable function to Al-Shyoukh. Patent Owner has not pointed to anything in the prior art that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation into the claimed invention. Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., 849 F.3d at 1382.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,471,074 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,471,074
• Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2024-01311 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 16–30 are unpatentable: claims 16–30 as obvious over Ellis and Spivey, claims 21, 22, 27, and 28 as anticipated by Herzog, and claims 25, 26, and 30 as obvious over Herzog and Ellis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that the relevant artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” PO Resp. 12. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We apply Patent Owner’s definition of the relevant artisan because, based on the record, this proposal is most consistent with the ’218 patent and the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of both Dr. Wicker and Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 96–98). We note that we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed plain meanings of “socket” and “event socket” (Pet. 32–33) are not disputed by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 2, 12. In fact, by arguing that Spivey’s topic queues are neither “uniquely addressable” nor “communication endpoints,” Patent Owner appears to adopt Petitioner’s proposed plain meaning of “socket” as a “uniquely addressable communication endpoint.” Id. As Patent Owner acknowledged during Oral Argument, “I don’t think there’s any dispute of what we mean by socket, a uniquely addressable communication endpoint.” Tr. 73:10–12. Based on the foregoing, we construe each of “socket” and “event socket” to have its plain and ordinary meaning, where the relevant artisan would have understood “socket” to mean “a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server,” and “event socket” to mean “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to a viewer client device (VCD).” 2 We further address these terms below in Section III.D.3. 2 During Oral Argument, Patent Owner argued, for the first time, that the District Court’s construction of “event socket” “should be applied equally here.” Tr. 73:13–76:24 (referring to Ex. 1069). The Court adopted Petitioner’s (Defendant’s) proposed definition of “event socket” as “a socket dedicated to a particular event” (Ex. 1069, 11–15), although in its summary of constructions, labeled “event socket” as being “a socket dedicated to a single event” (i.e., “single” event versus “particular” event) (id. at 26). Regardless, in the context of this case and this Decision, we find no meaningful difference between these articulations and Petitioner’s plain” slip op. at 15

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

    “As Petitioner explained during Oral Argument, Ellis “relates to the ability for the clients and the server to communicate,” which can be any system that can “provide real-time sports,” but “doesn’t discuss whether it’s a push system or a pull system,” whereas Spivey, on the other hand, “expressly indicates that it is a push type of data system which reduces latency over prior art systems that utilize push technologies.” Tr. 15:13–19. We find availing Petitioner’s contention that, “[a]s explained by Dr. Wicker, . . . [the relevant artisan] would have been motivated to implement real-time data delivery using Spivey’s data pushing technique to reduce latency.” Id. at 16:2–8. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner fails to “articulate why [the relevant artisan] would have been motivated to make the necessary modifications and proposed combination.” PO Resp. 40–41. Here, Petitioner points out that its proposed combination would have been made to improve latency issues in Ellis’s system. Pet. 23–26. In particular, Spivey discloses that its techniques “may reduce . . . delay [on the order of seconds (e.g., 30 to 45 seconds) or minutes] to an order of milliseconds (ms) (e.g., 100 ms) or less, providing a significant advantage over the conventional practices.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 28. Spivey also discloses pushing data to the “subscribed connected client devices” substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source, e.g., “with a time delay of 100 milliseconds or less,” which Spivey discloses is “at least two orders of magnitude shorter than conventional time periods of legacy devices.” Id. ¶ 96; see also id. at code (57) (disclosing pushing “the topic entry to a subscribed client device substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source”).” slip op. at 28

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

    “Considering the totality of the evidence, we find Patent Owner has not demonstrated that a long-felt but unresolved need existed for the claimed invention. See Apple v. Samsung, 839 F.3d at 1056. As Petitioner points out, although Patent Owner argues that there is a long-felt need for a system that “allows broadcasters to deliver synchronized, low-latency video and audio content” (PO Resp. 65), Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing that Ellis also discloses “a video streaming system that provided event information over a separate channel, which is not hard embedded in the video stream.” Pet. Reply 25. Further, as Petitioner points out in the context of “representative claim 12,” the claim “simply requires ‘receiv[ing] the first copy via a first video communication channel between at least one media source and the first client device,’” and “[i]n no way does that claim language relate to any synchronized, low-latency, scalable, flexible, or new and improved video streaming technique.” Pet. Reply 22. In fact, during Oral Argument, although Patent Owner argues that its invention is “the synchronization and the latency improvements through that one-to-many socket architecture,” Patent Owner conceded that the claims “could be broader than that.” Tr. 44:24–46:16. We find availing Petitioner’s argument that the “claim language” does not “relate to any synchronized, low-latency, scalable, flexible, or new and improved video streaming technique.” Pet. Reply 22. Petitioner argues that we should give “no weight” to Patent Owner’s alleged “evidence” of any long-felt but unresolved needs. Pet. Reply 22. In particular, Patent Owner merely provides conclusory statements that, prior to the claimed invention, “conventional video streaming systems” included “hard-embedded event information,” and that “[t]he claimed invention satisfied the long-felt need for an innovative system.” PO Resp. 64–65. Thus, considering the totality of the evidence, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has failed to establish that there was a long-felt but unresolved need for the claimed invention.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 11,039,218 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,039,218
• Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2024-01310 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 12–15 over Ellis and Spivey, and claims 1–11 over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog; the other grounds were not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Relying on Dr. Wicker’s testimony, Petitioner contends that the relevant artisan would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76). Petitioner also states that “[a]dditional education or experience in related fields could compensate for deficits in the above qualifications.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner contends that the relevant artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 96). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We apply Patent Owner’s definition of the relevant artisan because, based on the record, this proposal is most consistent with the ’218 patent and the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of both Dr. Wicker and Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 96–98). We note that we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed plain meanings of “socket” and “event socket” (Pet. 26) are not disputed by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 2, 12. In fact, by arguing that Spivey’s topic queues are neither “uniquely addressable” nor “communication endpoints,” Patent Owner appears to adopt Petitioner’s proposed plain meaning of “socket” as a “uniquely addressable communication endpoint.” Id. As Patent Owner acknowledged during Oral Argument, “I don’t think there’s any dispute of what we mean by socket, a uniquely addressable communication endpoint.” Tr. 73:10–12. Thus, we give each of “socket” and “event socket” its plain meaning, where the relevant artisan would have understood “socket” to mean “a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server,” and “event socket” to mean “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to a viewer client device (VCD).” 4 We address such terms below in Section III.D.3. After considering the arguments and information presented during trial, we determine that we do not need to otherwise expressly construe any terms in order to resolve the dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We find Petitioner’s contentions with Dr. Wicker’s supporting testimony persuasive. In particular, we find Petitioner’s reliance on Spivey for disclosing “event socket” is supported by Spivey’s disclosures that a topic queue’s address “may resemble a uniform resource locator (URL)” and that user interface 900 “allow[s] an operator 108 of a client device to view and select . . . topics available from a message queue server.” Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 82, 84, Fig. 9. In Spivey, the message flow begins “when message queue server . . . pushes data payloads to subscribers of the topics in [the] message.” See Ex. 1017 ¶ 134. As Petitioner explains, in Spivey, “the address for connecting a topic queue may resemble a URL, and client devices can select from a list of available topics and subscribe to those queues, after which the MQSD pushes the relevant data payloads to the subscribed devices.” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 82–84, 134). As Petitioner explains, and as supported by Dr. Wicker’s testimony, Spivey’s “topic label may be . . . ‘gamecenter.nfl.ravensteelers,’ and client devices use these topic label text strings to connect and subscribe to the MQSD’s topic queues.” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 353–354). We find availing that, in Spivey, since the “client devices ‘request a live data connection’ by selecting or entering the address or connection information which ‘may resemble a uniform resource locator (URL),’” Spivey’s topic queues “are not only logically but also actually implemented as uniquely addressable communication endpoints.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1064 ¶¶ 11–14). We find that Dr. Rubin’s testimony that the only potential “communication endpoint” in Spivey that is “uniquely addressable” is the live data access server (Ex. 2001 ¶ 233) merely addresses particular embodiments in Spivey. That is, Dr. Rubin does not address sufficiently Spivey’s teachings as a whole as understood from the perspective of the relevant artisan, which would include other embodiments. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1361 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“What a prior art reference discloses or teaches is determined from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.”); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (noting that when evaluating claims for obviousness, “the prior art as a whole must be considered”). Dr. Rubin does not address Spivey’s disclosure that the system “may include” the LDAS (Ex. 1017 ¶ 38), but, as Petitioner points out, merely acknowledges that “there are examples in Spivey using the language [‘may’].” Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1063, 62:8–13). As Petitioner points out, in his deposition, Dr. Rubin acknowledges” slip op. at 29

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

    “As Petitioner explained during Oral Argument, Ellis “relates to the ability for the clients and the server to communicate,” which can be any system that can “provide real-time sports,” but “doesn’t discuss whether it’s a push system or a pull system,” whereas Spivey, on the other hand, “expressly indicates that it is a push type of data system which reduces latency over prior art systems that utilize push technologies.” Tr. 15:13–19. We find availing Petitioner’s contention that, “[a]s explained by Dr. Wicker, . . . [the relevant artisan] would have been motivated to implement real-time data delivery using Spivey’s data pushing technique to reduce latency.” Id. at 16:2–8. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner fails to “articulate why [the relevant artisan] would have been motivated to make the necessary modifications and proposed combination.” PO Resp. 40–41. Here, Petitioner points out that its proposed combination would have been made to improve latency issues in Ellis’s system. Pet. 20–22. In particular, Spivey discloses that its techniques “may reduce . . . delay [on the order of seconds (e.g., 30 to 45 seconds) or minutes] to an order of milliseconds (ms) (e.g., 100 ms) or less, providing a significant advantage over the conventional practices.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 28. Spivey also discloses pushing data to the “subscribed connected client devices” substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source, e.g., “with a time delay of 100 milliseconds or less,” which Spivey discloses is “at least two orders of magnitude shorter than conventional time periods of legacy devices.” Id. ¶ 96; see also id. at code (57) (disclosing pushing “the topic entry to a subscribed client device substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source”). We find Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner fails to “explain the modifications necessary to combine such teachings” are inconsistent with the evidence of record. PO Resp. 40–47. For example, Patent Owner’s argument that the proposed combination would be inoperable because the combination “does not include the LDAS” (id. at 43–44) is not consistent with the evidence of record that Spivey does not require the LDAS to serve as intermediary between the MQSD and the user equipment. See Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 38, 46. As discussed above, Spivey states that the system “may” include an LDAS (Ex. 1017 ¶ 38), supporting Petitioner’s contention that, in Spivey, the LDAS is “optional” wherein “the MQSD may be ‘accessible to clients over the network directly.’” Pet. Reply 3. As discussed above in Section III.D.3.a, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that Spivey’s MQSD may push data from topic queues to the subscribers of the topics corresponding to those topic queues, which indicates that “the MQSD can deliver data directly to clients without the necessity of an LDAS.” Id. (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 46).” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 11,039,218 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,039,218
• Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2026 · IPR2024-01307 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Ellis and Spivey; the Board found the Herzog, Spivey, and Ellis combination did not establish obviousness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Relying on the declaration of Dr. Wicker, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention of the ’687 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76). Petitioner also states that “[a]dditional education or experience in related fields could compensate for deficits in the above qualifications.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a POSA at the time of the invention of the ’687 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” PO Resp. 13–14 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 103). The parties have not addressed whether the differences in these definitions impact the unpatentability analysis before us. We apply Patent Owner’s definition of a POSA at the time of the claimed invention because, based on the record, this proposal is consistent with the ’687 patent, the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Wicker. We note that we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 14

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

    “have viewed Spivey’s websocket connections as more advantageous for providing video content and event data to end-users than Ellis’s HTTP request-response protocol, thus motivating simple substitution of Spivey’s LDSD and MQSD for Ellis’s SCS. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 34, 47; Ex. 1017 ¶ 34; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 114–115). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (simple substitution of one known element for another is a recognized rationale supporting a motivation to combine). For example, if server requests are frequent, a POSA would have recognized that the processing overhead of setting up and tearing down HTTP connections would exceed any latency disadvantages of Spivey’s persistent websocket connections. Ex. 1064 ¶ 35. Thus, under some circumstances, a POSA would have been motivated to make the Ellis-Spivey combination, and we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “demonstrated that a long-felt but unresolved need existed for the claimed invention. See Apple v. Samsung, 839 F.3d at 1056. As Petitioner points out, although Patent Owner argues that there is a long-felt need for a system that “allows broadcasters to deliver synchronized, low-latency video and audio content . . . ” (PO Resp. 66), Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing that Ellis also discloses “a video streaming system that provided event information over a separate channel, which is not hard embedded in the video stream.” Pet. Reply 23. Further, as Petitioner also points out, “representative claim 19 simply requires a media source to receive the video stream and distribute it.” Pet. Reply 23. In fact, during Oral Argument, although Patent Owner argues that its invention is “the synchronization and the latency improvements through that one-to-many socket architecture,” Patent conceded that the claims “could be broader than that.” Tr. 44:24–46:16. We agree with Petitioner’s argument that the “claim language” does not “relate to any synchronized, low-latency, scalable, flexible, or new and improved video streaming technique.” Pet. Reply 23. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner does not cite to any evidence of long-felt but unresolved needs. Pet. Reply 23 (citing PO Resp. 67–68). In particular, Patent Owner merely provides conclusory statements that, prior to the claimed invention, “conventional video streaming systems” include “hard-embedded event information,” and that “[t]he claimed invention satisfied the long-felt need for an innovative system.” PO Resp. 66–68. Thus, considering the totality of the evidence, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has failed to establish that there was a long-felt but unresolved need for the claimed invention.” slip op. at 60

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

    “We find Patent Owner has not provided sufficient evidence showing the industry praised a claimed invention or a product that embodies the patent claims. WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1334. In particular, other than Patent Owner’s mere conclusory statement that the benefits and advantages highlighted by the industry “result directly from the claims” (PO Resp. 69), we see no evidence in the record that the subject matter specifically recited by claim 1 of the ’687 patent, for example, was the object of the praise. That is, Patent Owner does not explain how the relied-upon praise particularly relates to the claims of the ’687 patent. Id. For Patent Owner’s evidence concerning objective indicia of non- obviousness to be considered, Patent Owner must establish a nexus between the evidence concerning objective indicia of non-obviousness and the merits of the claimed invention. See ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220. We find availing Petitioner’s argument that the evidence of industry praise submitted by Patent Owner does not “explain[] how those awards related to any embodying product, much less any relation between the award and the ’687’s claims.” Pet. Reply 23–24. For example, although Patent Owner notes that it was a finalist for “Best App,” as Petitioner argues, Patent Owner “does not explain how that award is related to the claimed ‘inventive server and memory storage architecture.’” Id. at 24. Although Patent Owner also relies on the opinion of former NBA” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 10,805,687 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,805,687
• Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2026 · IPR2024-01305 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable: claims 1, 8, and 9 as obvious over Ellis and Spivey, and claims 2–7 as obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Relying on the declaration of Dr. Wicker, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention of the ’687 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76). Petitioner also states that “[a]dditional education or experience in related fields could compensate for deficits in the above qualifications.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a POSA at the time of the invention of the ’687 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 99). The parties have not addressed whether the differences in these definitions impact the unpatentability analysis before us. We apply Patent Owner’s definition of a POSA at the time of the claimed invention because, based on the record, this proposal is consistent with the ’687 patent, the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Wicker. We note that we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner contends that the plain and ordinary meaning should apply to all terms of the challenged claims except for “event socket.” PO Resp. 12. Petitioner argues that an “event socket” should be construed as “uniquely addressable communication endpoints that transmit event information.” Pet. Reply 8–10. Patent Owner does not disagree with Petitioner’s proposal. See generally PO Sur-Reply. As the parties do not dispute the meaning of “event socket,” we need not, and do not, expressly construe the term beyond the parties agreed meaning. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Petitioner’s contention that Ellis and Spivey differ in that Ellis uses HTTP request-response messages whereas Spivey uses websocket connections between the content delivery system’s server and user equipment. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 106–115). As Petitioner points out, in Ellis’s HTTPS connections, a user equipment requests the server to respond with any new messages. Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 50, 51); Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 37, 40. We agree with Petitioner that Spivey’s websocket connections were a known alternative to HTTP requests. Id. (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 52, 53, 58, 59). We further agree that such websockets constitute bidirectional, full-duplex, stateful, and persistent connections that provide instant updates from the server to the user equipment without the need for the user equipment to request them from the server (referred to as “push” technology). Id. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that, under some scenarios, a POSA would have viewed Spivey’s websocket connections as more advantageous for providing video content and event data to end-users than Ellis’s HTTP request-response protocol, thus motivating simple substitution of Spivey’s LDSD and MQSD for Ellis’s SCS. Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 34, 47; Ex. 1017 ¶ 34; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 114, 115). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (simple substitution of one known element for another is a recognized rationale supporting a motivation to combine). For example, if server requests are frequent, a POSA would have recognized that the processing overhead of setting up and tearing down HTTP connections would exceed any latency disadvantages of Spivey’s persistent websocket connections. Ex. 1064 ¶ 35. Thus, under some circumstances, a POSA would have been motivated to make the Ellis-Spivey combination, and we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Considering the totality of the evidence, we find Patent Owner has not demonstrated that a long-felt but unresolved need existed for the claimed invention. See Apple, 839 F.3d at 1056. As Petitioner points out, although Patent Owner argues that there is a long-felt need for a system that “allows broadcasters to deliver synchronized, low-latency digital content, such as a video content, and audio content . . . ” (PO Resp. 64), Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing that Ellis also discloses “a video streaming system that provided event information over a separate channel, which is not hard embedded in the video stream.” Pet. Reply 23. Further, as Petitioner also points out, “claim 1 simply requires a media source to receive the video stream and distribute the video stream.” Pet. Reply 23. In fact, during Oral Argument, although Patent Owner argues that its invention is “the synchronization and the latency improvements through that one-to-many socket architecture,” Patent Owner conceded that the claims “could be broader than that.” Tr. 44:24–46:16. We agree with Petitioner’s argument that the “claim language” does not “relate to any synchronized, low-latency, scalable, flexible, or new and improved video streaming technique.” Pet. Reply 23. Furthermore, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner does not cite to any evidence of long-felt but unresolved needs. Pet. Reply 23 (citing PO Resp. 66). In particular, Patent Owner merely provides conclusory statements that, prior to the claimed invention, “conventional video streaming systems” include “hard-embedded event information,” and that “[t]he claimed invention satisfied the long-felt need for an innovative system.” PO Resp. 64–66. Thus, considering the totality of the evidence, we agree with” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 10,805,687 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,805,687
• 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
• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01336 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 24, and 25 are unpatentable; claims 10, 13, 14, 17, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable, principally due to missing limitations or insufficient motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “information” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as “data,” and that Patent Owner’s narrower construction of “first information” and “second information” lacks sufficient support in the intrinsic record. We agree with Petitioner that the ’802 patent Specification defines “information” as data when it uses the phrase “information (i.e., data).” See Ex. 1001, 5:60–62 (“Information (i.e., data) to be transmitted may be received in a baseband digital system 250, such as a wireless digital baseband processor.” (emphasis added)), 11:30–32 (“In this example, the signals 911 and 912 carry the same information (data).” (emphasis added)). As the Federal Circuit has explained, a “specification’s use of ‘i.e.’ signals an intent to define the word to which it refers.” Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). slip op. at 13

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

    “argument based on Fernandez alone, we find that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a motivation to remove the amplification from each of Fernandez’s signal generators 10A-10E and add a single power amplifier instead. See Pet. 76–77 Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Petitioner’s only rationale for this modification to Fernandez is that “[a] single amplifier has several advantages compared to multiple amplifiers, including lower complexity, a single (vs. multiple) potential point of failure, and lower cost,” and that one of ordinary skill “would have found a single amplifier to be a simple matter of design preference.” Pet. 76–77. Dr. Almeroth simply repeats these cursory allegations without providing any further explanation or evidentiary support. Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Moreover, Dr. Cooklev provides credible testimony that replacing Fernandez’s amplification in signal generators 10A–10E with a single amplifier would not necessarily have the advantages that Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 99, 104–105. For example, Dr. Cooklev testifies that a single amplifier would need to have a wider bandwidth than the multiple amplifiers used in Fernandez, which could cause potential stability issues. Id. ¶ 105. According to Dr. Cooklev, this wider bandwidth would require more circuit elements, and thus would not provide the reduction in space usage and power consumption that Petitioner asserts. Id. According to Dr. Cooklev, Montojo also points to several “substantial, and potentially impractical, drawbacks” of using a single amplifier for multiple signal generators, including power constraints imposed by spectral emission requirements and on-board battery capacity. Id. ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7– 8). In light of this testimony, which we find credible, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace the multiple amplifiers in Fernandez’s signal generators with a single amplifier.” slip op. at 65

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

    “argument based on Fernandez alone, we find that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a motivation to remove the amplification from each of Fernandez’s signal generators 10A-10E and add a single power amplifier instead. See Pet. 76–77 Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Petitioner’s only rationale for this modification to Fernandez is that “[a] single amplifier has several advantages compared to multiple amplifiers, including lower complexity, a single (vs. multiple) potential point of failure, and lower cost,” and that one of ordinary skill “would have found a single amplifier to be a simple matter of design preference.” Pet. 76–77. Dr. Almeroth simply repeats these cursory allegations without providing any further explanation or evidentiary support. Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Moreover, Dr. Cooklev provides credible testimony that replacing Fernandez’s amplification in signal generators 10A–10E with a single amplifier would not necessarily have the advantages that Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 99, 104–105. For example, Dr. Cooklev testifies that a single amplifier would need to have a wider bandwidth than the multiple amplifiers used in Fernandez, which could cause potential stability issues. Id. ¶ 105. According to Dr. Cooklev, this wider bandwidth would require more circuit elements, and thus would not provide the reduction in space usage and power consumption that Petitioner asserts. Id. According to Dr. Cooklev, Montojo also points to several “substantial, and potentially impractical, drawbacks” of using a single amplifier for multiple signal generators, including power constraints imposed by spectral emission requirements and on-board battery capacity. Id. ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7– 8). In light of this testimony, which we find credible, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace the multiple amplifiers in Fernandez’s signal generators with a single amplifier.” slip op. at 65

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We find credible and agree with Dr. Cooklev’s testimony that the predistortion signals from tables 17-1 and 17-2 “are cancelled out by Suzuki’s amplifier” 28. Ex. 2013 ¶ 50. Dr. Cooklev supports his opinion by referring to paragraph 1 of Suzuki, which states that Suzuki’s invention is directed to “a multi-band lookup table type predistorter” (such as the one implemented using lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 in Figure 6) that “compensates for a distortion of a power amplifier.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 54; Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. Dr. Cooklev’s opinion is also supported by paragraph 3 of Suzuki, which explains that a conventional digital predistorter uses a lookup table “for linearizing non-linear characteristics of an amplifier.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 3; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. Dr. Cooklev further supports his opinion by relying on Suzuki’s disclosure in paragraph 46 that power amplifier 28 is “subject to distortion compensation” by the predistorter, and that distortion components in the signal output by the amplifier are canceled by “distortion compensation data [that] are read out from the lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 and provided to the adders 13-1 and 13-2, respectively.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 46; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. And, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion is supported by Suzuki’s disclosure in paragraph 47 that the distortion compensation added by adders 13-1 and 13-2 add the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 “to perform distortion compensation (addition of predistortion)” to “signals to be transmitted.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 47; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. Petitioner agrees that the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 “are added to the respective frequency band from” input signal ST “in order to predistort the output signal, which is then transmitted,” and does not dispute that the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 is ultimately cancelled out by the distortion created by amplifier 28. Pet. Reply 8. In light of the above evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that Suzuki’s distortion components from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 in Figure 6 (which Petitioner relies on for the first and second digital signals in limitations 10a and 10b) are cancelled out by the distortion created by power amplifier 28 before the signal is ultimately transmitted. We agree with Petitioner that these first and second digital signals include data in the form of distortion compensation data. However, because these signals are cancelled by the distortion from amplifier 28 before transmission, the data from these signals is never transmitted. Thus, the first and second digital signals identified by Petitioner (the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2) do not comprise data “to be transmitted,” as limitations 10a and 10b require.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 7,924,802 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,924,802
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01281 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–15, and 17–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson; claim 8 is also unpatentable with Russell.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “been motivated to combine the teachings of Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, and Russell in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra §§ III.E.2(a)–(b). Hence, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 is unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claim would have been obvious over Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, and Russell.” slip op. at 122

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 7,738,471 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,738,471

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.