- Google LLC v. Mindbasehq, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2021-01252 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Remand
On remand, claims 14–19, 33–40, and 43–46 were held unpatentable as obvious; the Federal Circuit’s affirmed findings leave claims 1–13, 20–32, 41, and 42 unpatentable as well.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“to both cases vacating and remanding in part and affirming in part our Final Written Decisions. Appeal Dec. With respect to Petitioner’s appeals, the Federal Circuit addressed the “dictionary routine” claims (claims 14–19 and 33–40) and the “normalization” claims (claims 43–46). Appeal Dec. 7–14. For the “dictionary routine” claims, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, stating that In sum, as Google contends and we now hold, the “dictionary routine” claims can be practiced by use of an already-created dictionary, and do not also require the automatic creation of a dictionary. The Board needs to consider Google’s evidence and argument by applying this construction of the automatically classifying and storing limitation, and using this understanding to determine whether Conlon may, in fact, render the “dictionary routine” claims obvious (and, relatedly, whether its prior distinctions of Conlon may be immaterial). Appeal Dec. 10–11. For the “normalization” claims, the Federal Circuit also vacated and remanded, stating that our “decision to exclude Google’s rebuttal argument and supplemental declaration is based on a clear factual error,” so on remand we “must include evaluation of the evidence and argument Google provided in reply.” Id. at 13–14. With respect to Patent Owner’s cross-appeals, the Federal Circuit affirmed. Id. at 14–16.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The Federal Circuit concluded that Petitioner’s construction of “automatically classifying and storing” (as recited in limitation [14.3]), is correct. Appeal Dec. 8. That is, “the ‘dictionary routine’ claims can be practiced by [the] use of an already-created dictionary, and do not also require the automatic creation of a dictionary.” Id. at 10; see also Reply 7 (the limitation is “directed to the use of a dictionary function to automatically look up words and their syntax”); Appeal Dec. 8 (“nothing about the term . . . would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art that automatic ‘creation’ of a database, in addition to the ‘use’ of an already-created database, is a requirement of the dictionary routine claims”); id. (“the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language is broad enough to include ‘use’”); id. (agreeing with Petitioner that “the specification describes the ‘dictionary routine’ as the act of looking up words already in the database”); id. at 9 (stating that “[i]t is notable, as well, that the specification nowhere describes automatically creating a dictionary; all instances of creating dictionary entries rely, at least in part, on manual data entry by users”). As directed by the Federal Circuit, we will apply this construction in our analysis.8 Id. 8 Patent Owner argues that the Federal Circuit “cherry-picks” and misinterprets the patents’ specifications, and “ignores the clearly contrary specification language.” PO Remand Br. 4–5, 10; id. at 8 (arguing that that the specification clearly set forth the definition of the claim term, and “the Board must accept term definitions . . . above all external definitions”). We do not consider these arguments on the construction of this limitation, because the Federal Circuit has directed us to proceed under its construction of the limitation. We also agree with Petitioner that the Federal Circuit’s claim construction is “foreclosed from further consideration” under its” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that claim 43 is obvious over the combination of Conlon, Miller, and Fong. The Federal Circuit stated, “[i]n this context, ‘normalization’ generally refers to de-duplicating and simplifying database entries (for instance, combining entries for ‘car’ and ‘automobile’).” Appeal Dec. 4 (cited at Pet. Response Br. 5). This is consistent with the disclosure in the ’433 patent. E.g., Ex. 1001, 16:55– 17:24 (discussing, for example, “recogniz[ing] that the differently named data elements in different structures are actually the same data element . . . is referred to as normalizing the names of the same data elements,” “recogniz[ing] that the same named data elements in different structures are actually different data elements . . . is referred to as normalizing the names of the different data elements,” and “normalizing multiple single data elements”). This is also consistent with how Fong describes “normalization.” Ex. 1029, 76 (The “Function” of “Normaliz[ing] the collection of entities” is to “[r]emove redundancies and detect errors”); see also Ex. 1057 ¶ 226. Patent Owner’s arguments that Fong’s normalization is “different” from the normalization described in the ’433 patent does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s arguments. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner does not provide a construction for “normalization,” despite claiming that the term is “defined” in the ’433 patent. Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 6; PO Remand Br. 13. Moreover, although Patent Owner purports to identify differences between the ’433 patent and Fong, the “normalization” applied is expressly recited in limitations [43.1.1], [43.1.2], and [43.2], and the subsequent actions taken on those normalized databases (i.e., comparing and recording) are recited in limitations [43.3]–[43.5]. That is, the “normalization” required by the claim is reflected in the claim language itself, and is broader than argued by Patent Owner. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art”). Patent Owner does not explain how these purported “differences” (e.g., that Fong may require the use of “database keys,” “identifiers,” “entities,” or determining ‘non-key attributes’ from key attributes) impacts the claim language, or Petitioner’s showing. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (A prior art reference “must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect”). For the same reasons, as well as those set forth by Petitioner, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that each DBMS requires a normalization process that is customized for it. Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 6–7. These arguments by Patent Owner also are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language, which does not recite a DBMS, and generally recites “normalizing” or “normalized” without regard to the DBMS. Id. Dr. Jansen provides an example of a database in unnormalized form that is converted into a normalized form, based on Fong’s four conditions, as applied to the claim language. See Reply 31–35; Ex. 1057 ¶¶ 226–261. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner has not explained how the example maps onto the limitations. PO Remand Resp. Br. 6–12. Patent Owner’s complaint that Dr. Jansen created the graphic in the example does not undermine Petitioner’s showing. E.g., Trial Practice Guide,14 I.G., (“Experts may testify about the teachings of the prior art and how they relate to the patentability of the challenged claims.”). We find Dr. Jansen’s testimony credible and persuasive in explaining why the combination of Conlon and Fong teaches the claim limitations. After considering the properly presented evidence and arguments of the complete record, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Conlon, Miller, and Fong teaches the limitations in claim 43, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Conlon, Miller, and Fong, and that claim 44 would have been obvious over Conlon, Miller, and Fong. 2. Analysis of Dependent Claims 44–46 Claims 44–46 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 41. We, likewise, determine whether the combination renders obvious claims 44–46, taking into account the arguments made in Petitioner’s Reply Briefs and Dr. Jansen’s Supplemental Rebuttal Declarations. Petitioner contends that dependent claims 44–46, would have been obvious over Conlon, Miller, and Fong, and provides explanation as to how the prior art teaches each claim limitation. Pet. 84–86; Reply 35–39; Pet. Remand Br. 13–14. Patent Owner does not provide further briefing on dependent claims 44–46. 14 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trial-practice-guide#step2. Patent Owner did not specifically challenge Petitioner’s contentions as” slip op. at 31
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing. Patent Owner did not specifically challenge Petitioner’s contentions as to the sufficiency of Conlon’s disclosure for claim 1410 in the Patent Owner Response. In the Sur-replies, Patent Owner argues that the claim requires that at least some relationships are created “automatically,” and “these automatic embodiments . . . are represented in this group of claims.” Sur-reply 9. Along these lines, in the additional briefing Patent Owner argues that Conlon does not teach “automatic,” but merely teaches “semi-automatic.” PO Remand Br. 9–10. The crux of Patent Owner’s argument, however, is that the Federal Circuit did not properly construe the limitation, and ignored certain disclosures in the ’433 (and ’680) patent. Id. at 10–11; see Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 1–4; PO Remand Resp. Br. 4–5. The Federal Circuit held that “the dictionary routine claims can be satisfied by mere use of a lexical database, and do not also require the automatic creation of additional definitions.” Appeal Dec. 10. Moreover, the statements from Conlon that Patent Owner relies upon relate to creating a database, not using the database. See id. As discussed above, on remand we are directed to apply the Federal Circuit’s construction. Patent Owner does not explain 10 As discussed in the original Final Written Decisions, Patent Owner raised several arguments that generally applied to all the claims, challenging, for example, the level of ordinary skill in the art, whether Conlon, Miller, and Beckwith were analogous art, and several general arguments relating to Conlon and the motivation to combine Conlon with a DBMS. See Final Dec. 14–23, 25–27. We were not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments; the Federal Circuit affirmed, determining that our findings were supported by substantial evidence. Appeal Dec. 14–16. why Petitioner’s contentions are not persuasive in light of the Federal Circuit’s construction of this limitation. In addition, Patent Owner argues in the Sur-replies that “[c]laims 14– 19 are not disclosed by the proffered prior art” and cites to paragraphs 78–83 of the Ranka Rebuttal Declarations. Sur-reply 10. As discussed in the original Final Written Decisions, Patent Owner’s reliance on six paragraphs of Dr. Ranka’s Rebuttal Declarations is an improper incorporation by reference, as Patent Owner did not discuss that testimony or further elaborate on these arguments in the Sur-replies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 9–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative); see, e.g., Final Dec. 37–39, 45, 48–50, 52. Therefore, we will not consider arguments that are not made in the Sur-replies, but are instead improperly incorporated by reference to the cited paragraphs in Dr. Ranka’s Rebuttal Declarations. Accordingly, after considering the evidence and arguments of the complete record, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Conlon teaches limitation [14.3], and that claim 14 would have been obvious over Conlon.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 6,665,680 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,665,680 - Google LLC v. Mindbasehq, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2021-01251 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Remand
On remand, claims 14–19, 33–40, and 43–46 were held unpatentable as obvious over Conlon alone or Conlon, Miller, and Fong; the affirmed unpatentability of claims 1–13, 20–32, 41, and 42 remains.
RulingsRemand decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“automatically classifying and storing” (as recited in limitation [14.3]), is correct. Appeal Dec. 8. That is, “the ‘dictionary routine’ claims can be practiced by [the] use of an already-created dictionary, and do not also require the automatic creation of a dictionary.” Id. at 10; see also Reply 7 (the limitation is “directed to the use of a dictionary function to automatically look up words and their syntax”); Appeal Dec. 8 (“nothing about the term . . . would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art that automatic ‘creation’ of a database, in addition to the ‘use’ of an already-created database, is a requirement of the dictionary routine claims”); id. (“the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language is broad enough to include ‘use’”); id. (agreeing with Petitioner that “the specification describes the ‘dictionary routine’ as the act of looking up words already in the database”); id. at 9 (stating that “[i]t is notable, as well, that the specification nowhere describes automatically creating a dictionary; all instances of creating dictionary entries rely, at least in part, on manual data entry by users”). As directed by the Federal Circuit, we will apply this construction in our analysis.8 Id. 8 Patent Owner argues that the Federal Circuit “cherry-picks” and misinterprets the patents’ specifications, and “ignores the clearly contrary specification language.” PO Remand Br. 4–5, 10; id. at 8 (arguing that that the specification clearly set forth the definition of the claim term, and “the Board must accept term definitions . . . above all external definitions”). We do not consider these arguments on the construction of this limitation, because the Federal Circuit has directed us to proceed under its construction of the limitation. We also agree with Petitioner that the Federal Circuit’s claim construction is “foreclosed from further consideration” under its slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“combination of Conlon, Miller, and Fong. The Federal Circuit stated, “[i]n this context, ‘normalization’ generally refers to de-duplicating and simplifying database entries (for instance, combining entries for ‘car’ and ‘automobile’).” Appeal Dec. 4 (cited at Pet. Response Br. 5). This is consistent with the disclosure in the ’433 patent. E.g., Ex. 1001, 16:55– 17:24 (discussing, for example, “recogniz[ing] that the differently named data elements in different structures are actually the same data element . . . is referred to as normalizing the names of the same data elements,” “recogniz[ing] that the same named data elements in different structures are actually different data elements . . . is referred to as normalizing the names of the different data elements,” and “normalizing multiple single data elements”). This is also consistent with how Fong describes “normalization.” Ex. 1029, 76 (The “Function” of “Normaliz[ing] the collection of entities” is to “[r]emove redundancies and detect errors”); see also Ex. 1057 ¶ 226. Patent Owner’s arguments that Fong’s normalization is “different” from the normalization described in the ’433 patent does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s arguments. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner does not provide a construction for “normalization,” despite claiming that the term is “defined” in the ’433 patent. Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 6; PO Remand Br. 13. Moreover, although Patent Owner purports to identify differences between the ’433 patent and Fong, the “normalization” applied is expressly recited in limitations [43.1.1], [43.1.2], and [43.2], and the subsequent actions taken on those normalized databases (i.e., comparing and recording) are recited in limitations [43.3]–[43.5]. That is, the “normalization” required by the claim is reflected in the claim language itself, and is broader than argued by Patent Owner. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art”). Patent Owner does not explain how these purported “differences” (e.g., that Fong may require the use of “database keys,” “identifiers,” “entities,” or determining ‘non-key attributes’ from key attributes) impacts the claim language, or Petitioner’s showing. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (A prior art reference “must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect”). For the same reasons, as well as those set forth by Petitioner, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that each DBMS requires a normalization process that is customized for it. Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 6–7. These arguments by Patent Owner also are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language, which does not recite a DBMS, and generally recites “normalizing” or “normalized” without regard to the DBMS. Id. Dr. Jansen provides an example of a database in unnormalized form that is converted into a normalized form, based on Fong’s four conditions, as applied to the claim language. See Reply 31–35; Ex. 1057 ¶¶ 226–261. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner has not explained how the example maps onto the limitations. PO Remand Resp. Br. 6–12. Patent Owner’s complaint that Dr. Jansen created the graphic in the example does not undermine Petitioner’s showing. E.g., Trial Practice Guide,14 I.G., (“Experts may testify about the teachings of the prior art and how they relate to the patentability of the challenged claims.”). We find Dr. Jansen’s testimony credible and persuasive in explaining why the combination of Conlon and Fong teaches the claim limitations.” slip op. at 31
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Jansen provides an example of a database in unnormalized form that is converted into a normalized form, based on Fong’s four conditions, as applied to the claim language. See Reply 31–35; Ex. 1057 ¶¶ 226–261. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner has not explained how the example maps onto the limitations. PO Remand Resp. Br. 6–12. Patent Owner’s complaint that Dr. Jansen created the graphic in the example does not undermine Petitioner’s showing. E.g., Trial Practice Guide,14 I.G., (“Experts may testify about the teachings of the prior art and how they relate to the patentability of the challenged claims.”). We find Dr. Jansen’s testimony credible and persuasive in explaining why the combination of Conlon and Fong teaches the claim limitations.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“4. Summary of Ground 1 Having considered the Graham factors,11 including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the challenged claims, we are persuaded, based on the current record, that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 14–19 and 33–40 would have been obvious over Conlon.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 6,510,433 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,510,433 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currecy Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00838 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 6 over Fuhse262, and the dependent claims over the additional asserted combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSITA because Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology. For example, the ʼ191 patent provides, as relevant background, a discussion of anti-counterfeiting devices made up of arrays of lenses used to display unique images, placed on currency and labels for retail products. Ex. 1001, 1:27–42. The ʼ191 patent also discusses using lenses to create holograms. Id. at 2:6–21. Similarly, the prior art in this field, such as Fuhse262, relates to the use of lenses and mirrors to create hologram images for security purposes. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1–7. These descriptions demonstrate, consistent with Petitioner’s proposed definition, that a POSITA would need an educational background to understand optics, lenses, and mirrors along with professional experience with optical security features to understand the creation of holograms and images using lenses and mirrors for the purpose of preventing counterfeiting of currency and other valuable products.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“spot. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 95–96, Fig. 10. Dr. Hesselink credibly testifies that while Fuhse262 depicts rays that form a light spot, the rays depicted are “chief rays” that depict only the center rays of light for each optical element. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178–179. Ambient light, however, reflects from the entire surface of the mirrors and forms reflected beams of light, not just the center rays aimed at the center point. Id. ¶ 178. According to Dr. Hesselink, the “chief ray” is representative of the larger bundle of rays that form the beams of light reflected off of the mirrors. See Id. ¶ 44. The volume of the voxel is set by the intersection of these beams and the center of the voxel is the point at which the center rays of each beam intersect. Id. ¶ 179. Although Dr. Lindstrand testifies “a POSITA would not have understood Fuhse262 to disclose creating a voxel” (Ex. 2004 ¶ 43), Dr. Lindstrand does not dispute Dr. Hesselink’s testimony that light would reflect off of the entire surface of Fuhse262’s mirrors and form reflected beams of light. See Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 42–58; Ex. 1055, 112:15–21 (“You also agree the ambient light would not just strike the center of the surface, it would strike the entire surface, correct? . . . THE WITNESS: I would say that that is a fair and accurate description.”) Dr. Hesselink’s testimony explaining that light beams would reflect off the entire surface of Fuhse262’s micromirrors and would create a voxel when they intersect with each other, provides sufficient support demonstrating how a POSITA would have understood Fuhse262’s disclosure of light rays being reflected off of mirrors and converging at a light spot shown in Figure 10. See Unification Techs. LLC v. Micron Tech. Inc., 2024 WL 3738401 at *7 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024) (affirming the use of expert testimony to demonstrate how a skilled artisan would have understood a prior art reference’s disclosure as teaching a claim limitation).” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require express construction.” Pet. 15. “Patent Owner agrees that the terms do not require construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition.” PO Resp. 13. We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision on institution. 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)); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 12
- BurdenUnpatentable
“off the entire surface of Fuhse262’s micromirrors and would create a voxel when they intersect with each other, provides sufficient support demonstrating how a POSITA would have understood Fuhse262’s disclosure of light rays being reflected off of mirrors and converging at a light spot shown in Figure 10. See Unification Techs. LLC v. Micron Tech. Inc., 2024 WL 3738401 at *7 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024) (affirming the use of expert testimony to demonstrate how a skilled artisan would have understood a prior art reference’s disclosure as teaching a claim limitation). Patent Owner argues that light beams that intersect in an irregular or unintentional manner would not necessarily form a voxel, but does not explicitly show that Fuhse262’s light beams do, in fact, intersect in an irregular manner. PO Resp. 19. Petitioner has shown, as supported by Fuhse262’s disclosure, that Fuhse262’s mirrors are each oriented intentionally to point to a spot that allows them to create a light spot at the intended coordinates. See Pet. 27 (“In particular, Fuhse262 explains that ‘[t]he position of the mirror surfaces, i.e. the normal vector n, is to be determined in such a way that the light incident from a specified direction k ⃗ is reflected onto the focal point (x0, y0, z0) for all micromirrors 102 assigned to light spot 110.’”) (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 96–97). This disclosure, combined with Dr. Hesselink’s testimony that the intersection of light beams from the mirrors would create not just a spot but a voxel due to light reflecting off the entire surface of Fuhse262’s mirrors demonstrates that Fuhse262 teaches limitation 1b.5.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 10,901,191 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,901,191 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currency Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00836 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 6–14, 28, and 32–39 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Fuhse262, Fuhse925, Jordan, and Fuhse172.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ways: the first is the inclusion of “or a similar field” when describing the education level of a POSITA, and second is the inclusion of “with diffusive light” when describing the experience level of a POSITA. We decline to include either of these additional requirements in the definition of the level of ordinary skill. As to the first difference, Patent Owner does not explain what aspects of computer science would make it a field similar to the others listed, nor what additional engineering coursework would suffice. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 25. Nor does Patent Owner explain, generally, what makes a field “similar” to the ones listed or how to make that determination. We determine that Patent uncertainty into the definition and, therefore, do not adopt it. As to the second difference, Patent Owner proposes that the level of skill include two years’ experience with “diffusive light micro-optic security features.” The ʼ294 patent, however, does not mention “diffusive light.” Instead, the challenge claims and the written description of the ʼ294 patent use the term “ambient light.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract, 20:50, 59. Ambient light, such as sunlight, includes both parallel and diffuse light. See Ex. 1055, 97:21–98:8; Ex. 1006 ¶ 54 (describing the use of sunlight or ceiling light). The ʼ294 patent mentions ambient light in an ordinary manner without discussing any distinctions between parallel light and diffuse light or giving any significance to the nature of diffuse light and its effects on the invention. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s definition of level of ordinary skill except that we find that the phrase “at least” in Petitioner’s proposed definition creates a vague, open-ended upper bound for the level of ordinary skill, and we therefore do not adopt that aspect of the proposal.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made”) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis added); Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“What a reference teaches a person of ordinary skill is not . . . limited to what a reference specifically ‘talks about’ or what is specifically ‘mentioned’ or ‘written’ in the reference.”). Here, Petitioner has established that Fuhse262 discloses mirrors that reflect light rays converging at a light spot. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 95–96, Fig. 10. Dr. Hesselink credibly testifies that while Fuhse262 depicts rays that form a light spot, the rays depicted are “chief rays” that depict only the center rays of light for each optical element. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 169–170. Ambient light, however, reflects from the entire surface of the mirrors and forms reflected beams of light, not just the center rays aimed at the center point. Id. ¶ 170. According to Dr. Hesselink, the “chief ray” is representative of the larger bundle of rays that form the beams of light reflected off of the mirrors. See Id. ¶ 44. The volume of the voxel is set by the intersection of these beams and the center of the voxel is the point at which the center rays of each beam intersect. Id. ¶ 171. Although Dr. Lindstrand testifies a POSITA would not have understood Fuhse262 to disclose creating a voxel (Ex. 2004 ¶ 43), Dr. Lindstrand does not dispute Dr. Hesselink’s testimony that light would reflect off of the entire surface of Fuhse262’s mirrors and form reflected beams of light. See Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 42– 58; Ex. 1055, 112:15–21 (“You also agree the ambient light would not just strike the center of the surface, it would strike the entire surface, correct? . . . THE WITNESS: I would say that that is a fair and accurate description.”) would reflect off the entire surface of Fuhse262’s micromirrors and would create a voxel when they intersect with each other, provides sufficient support demonstrating how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Fuhse262’s disclosure of light rays being reflected off of mirrors and converging at a light spot shown in Figure 10. See Unification Techs. LLC v. Micron Tech. Inc., 2024 WL 3738401 at *7 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024) (affirming the use of expert testimony to demonstrate how a skilled artisan would have understood a prior art reference’s disclosure as teaching a claim limitation).” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner argues that “no claim terms require express construction to resolve the challenges here.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner “agree[s] that the terms Resp. 13–14. Having reviewed the record and the arguments before us, we determine that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As to Petitioner’s more general allegations regarding motivation to combine the embodiments of Fuhse262 and reasonable expectation of success, we agree with Petitioner for the reasons provided in the Petition and summarized above. Specifically, we agree with Petitioner that Fuhse262 concave mirrors and lenses with embodiments that use micromirrors. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 83 (“In order to still obtain a higher resolution in the produced light-spot image with an unchanged high floating height, the large mirrors or lenses used in the previous exemplary embodiments are each replaced by a plurality of smaller micromirrors or microprisms, which together have essentially the same optical effect as the original optical element.”). We also agree that the embodiments of Fuhse262 build on each other and often refer back to each other. For example, Fuhse262 expressly refers back to “previous exemplary embodiments” when explaining that micromirrors may replace other optical elements in the various embodiments. Ex. 1006 ¶ 83. Fuhse262’s Figures 8(a) through 8(d) build on each successive example, adding and modifying the configuration of mirrors disclosed in the previous figure. See Id. ¶¶ 88, 94 (explaining that Figure 8(b) is based on Figure 8(a) but shows mirrors arranged in checkerboard-like manner and Figures 8(c) and 8(d) further modify the configuration with every “fourth field” and “ninth field” respectively being assigned to specific light spots.) Fuhse262 also explains that Figure 9 is a sectional view of Figure 8 and that Figure 10 illustrates the “calculation of the flat mirror surfaces of the micromirrors” of Figures 8 and 9. Id. ¶¶ 91, 95. For the aforementioned reasons, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the relied upon embodiments of Fuhse262.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 10,189,294 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,189,294 - Petitioner v. Intent Iq, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00129 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–152 are unpatentable over the asserted prior-art grounds; the Board also struck Section II of Petitioner’s reply claim-construction brief.
Nonecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,861,260 - Viant Techology LLC v. Intent Iq, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00422 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–152 unpatentable based on the asserted obviousness grounds and struck Section II of Petitioner’s reply claim-construction brief.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Decision issues pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“1. “Contracted to Display a TV Ad Petitioner argues that the term means “contracted to display any form” slip op. at 14
- Strike new argumentGranted
“FURTHER ORDERED that Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief is stricken from the record; and” slip op. at 80
Patent outcomesUS 7,861,260 unpatentableClaim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,861,260 - Viant Technology, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00128 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–152 unpatentable based on obviousness grounds and struck Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“1. “Contracted to Display a TV Ad Petitioner argues that the term means “contracted to display any form” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Baig, Costa, and Zwicky. 5. Analysis of Claims 2–5, 7–9, 12, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26–28, 31, 32, 34, 37, 42, 44, 53, 54–58, 61, 62, 69, 71–80, 83, 84, 86–88, 91, 94, 96, 100, 101, 103, 106, 116–119, 122, 125, 128, 135, 137– 145, 147, 148, 151, and 152 Petitioner argues that the combination of Baig, Costa, and Zwicky teaches the limitations recited in claims 2–5, 7–9, 12, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26–28, 31, 32, 34, 37, 42, 44, 53, 54–58, 61, 62, 69, 71–80, 83, 84, 86–88, 91, 94, 96, 100, 101, 103, 106, 116–119, 122, 125, 128, 135, 137–145, 147, 148, 151, and 152 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 28–60; 422Pet. 29–51. Petitioner’s arguments are supported by citations to the prior art and the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Pet. 28–60; 422Pet. 29–51. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, agree with them, and, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as our own. Patent Owner does not separately address those claims. See PO Resp.; 422PO Resp. Instead, Patent Owner only relies on the arguments discussed above for claim 1. See PO Resp. 13–16; 422PO Resp. 13–16. For the same reason as discussed above in Section II.D.4(b), we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the reason to combine the references. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence” slip op. at 50
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted
“F. Sua Sponte Striking Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief Our order allowing post-hearing claim construction briefing stated that “[t]he parties may not address any issues besides claim construction.” Paper 38, 1. Despite that order, Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief addresses obviousness under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Pet. Reply Post-hearing Br. 2–3 (Titled: “The Petition’s Obviousness Theory Renders Claims 121 and 146 Obvious Even Under Patent Owner’s Improper Construction.”). Because the section is in violation of our order, we sua sponte strike that section. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.12.” slip op. at 74
Patent outcomesUS 7,861,260 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,861,260 - Viant Techology LLC v. Intent Iq, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00421 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–152 unpatentable over the asserted prior art and struck Section II of Petitioner’s reply claim construction brief.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has demonstrated by a” slip op. at 50
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“1. “Contracted to Display a TV Ad Petitioner argues that the term means “contracted to display any form” slip op. at 14
- Strike new argumentGranted
“F. Sua Sponte Striking Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief Our order allowing post-hearing claim construction briefing stated that “[t]he parties may not address any issues besides claim construction.” Paper 38, 1. Despite that order, Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief addresses obviousness under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Pet. Reply Post-hearing Br. 2–3 (Titled: “The Petition’s Obviousness Theory Renders Claims 121 and 146 Obvious Even Under Patent Owner’s Improper Construction.”). Because the section is in violation of our order, we sua sponte strike that section. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.12.” slip op. at 74
Patent outcomesUS 7,861,260 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,861,260 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01151 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Buruganahalli; Patent Owner’s requests for rehearing are denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and four years of professional experience” and that “[l]ack of work experience could be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–30). Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and either 2 or more years of industry experience and/or an advanced degree in computer science or a related field.” PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 26–30). Neither side argues there is a difference in the competing proposals that would affect the patentability analysis or otherwise change the outcome. As we did at institution, we will apply Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan, as we find it consistent with the ’856 patent and the asserted prior art. E.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The Petition does not violate our rules. Rule 42.104(b)(3) simply requires that the Petition set forth “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” which Petitioner has done by asserting that the language of the claims is entitled to its ordinary meaning, except for “network-threat indicators,” for which Petitioner proposes a construction. Rule 42.104(b)(3) requires that the Petitioner set forth “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon,” which Petitioner has also done. See Pet. 18–50. A petition must be complete and sufficient as presented, but we are aware of nothing that would require a Petitioner to base its unpatentability arguments in a petition on any particular claim construction. Moreover, while it is true that the District Court’s construction of “network- threat indicators” uses different words than the construction offered for that term in the Petition, it appears to be very similar substantively, and Patent Owner does not identify any difference that would have a material impact on our analysis. Because we find Patent Owner’s arguments unpersuasive, and because we find that Petitioner’s proposed construction of “network-threat indicators” is consistent with how the term is used in the ’856 patent, we apply Petitioner’s proposed construction in this decision.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“9. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner’s analysis establishes that Buruganahalli teaches every limitation of claim 1, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the prior art are unpersuasive, and Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness is insufficient. We thus conclude that Petitioner has proven claim 1 unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Buruganahalli. C.” slip op. at 54
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Long Felt Need and Industry Praise Patent Owner argues that “the Cisco press release is evidence of long-felt need and industry recognition for the technology claimed in the ’856 Patent because it describes the problem of detecting threats in encrypted traffic as ‘unsolvable.’” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 1027, 64). Given that this is a press release by a company announcing that company’s new commercial product, however, we are reluctant to give the “unsolvable” characterization much weight, as it may amount to puffery. See Bayer Healthcare v. Watson Pharms., 713 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explaining that bare journal citations and self-referential commendation fall short of demonstrating industry praise). But beyond that, it appears that the problem identified as “unsolvable” in the press release–– “detect[ing] known attack signatures even in encrypted traffic”––had, in fact, already been solved in Buruganahalli, using the very same hello message, correlation, and man-in-the-middle techniques described in the ’856 patent. We thus cannot say that the press release identifies a long-felt need that was actually unsolved. See ZUP, 896 F.3d at 1374 (explaining that “[w]here the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention are . . . minimal . . . it cannot be said that any long-felt need was unsolved”) (quoting Geo. M. Martin Co. v. All. Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).” slip op. at 51
Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,917,856 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01199 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Buruganahalli; the Board did not reach the separate Buruganahalli and Baehr ground and denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests.
RulingsFinal written decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“First, as explained above, Buruganahalli describes determining “whether a new session using a secure protocol should be initially allowed based on a policy” and “further monitor[ing] encrypted data communications associated with the session.” Ex. 1004, 6:12–16. The system “extract[s] . . . the destination domain by parsing the handshake traffic” and then “can apply one or more firewall policies/rules implemented by the firewall device 304 (e.g., a policy that includes requirements or rules related to destination domains that may be used for secure protocol communications) prior to and/or without having to decrypt the encrypted secure tunnel session traffic.” Id. at 11:9–19. “[I]n addition to and/or in combination with” the handshake traffic (hello message) technique, “a trusted man-in-the-middle technique . . . can be used for intercepting and decoding encrypted tunneling communications to further monitor such traffic in clear text (e.g., unencrypted).” Id. at 11:61–67. Buruganahalli thus describes filtering flows based on the presence of the domain name, and forwarding those filtered flows to a proxy system for decryption and further analysis. Patent Owner’s argument that the filtering in Buruganahalli is “based on the IP address and port number associated with the encrypted packet” is unpersuasive because it does not address the filtering of flows based on the hello message domains. Second, the Petitions clearly identify the hello message theory of filtering, stating, for example, that “Buruganahalli discloses parsing a client’s SSL/TLS request (e.g., packets in handshake traffic, a hello message) to create a secure connection with a remote server to determine whether the destination domain extracted from the request corresponds to data on a blacklist” and that “[t]he system applies a security rule based on the destination domain extracted from the request to ‘filter traffic’ from the request.” See IPR2022-01151, Paper 2, 51; IPR2022-1199, Paper 1, 37. The Board did not raise this theory on its own.” slip op. at 56
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and four years of professional experience” and that “[l]ack of work experience could be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–30). Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and either 2 or more years of industry experience and/or an advanced degree in computer science or a related field.” PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 26–30). Neither side argues there is a difference in the competing proposals that would affect the patentability analysis or otherwise change the outcome. As we did at institution, we will apply Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan, as we find it consistent with the ’856 patent and the asserted prior art. E.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The Petition does not violate our rules. Rule 42.104(b)(3) simply requires that the Petition set forth “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” which Petitioner has done by asserting that the language of the claims is entitled to its ordinary meaning, except for “network-threat indicators,” for which Petitioner proposes a construction. Rule 42.104(b)(3) requires that the Petitioner set forth “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon,” which Petitioner has also done. See Pet. 18–50. A petition must be complete and sufficient as presented, but we are aware of nothing that would require a Petitioner to base its unpatentability arguments in a petition on any particular claim construction. Moreover, while it is true that the District Court’s construction of “network- threat indicators” uses different words than the construction offered for that term in the Petition, it appears to be very similar substantively, and Patent Owner does not identify any difference that would have a material impact on our analysis. Because we find Patent Owner’s arguments unpersuasive, and because we find that Petitioner’s proposed construction of “network-threat indicators” is consistent with how the term is used in the ’856 patent, we apply Petitioner’s proposed construction in this decision.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“At the hearing, Patent Owner argued there is no URI (or URL) in Buruganahalli’s handshake message. See Transcript 61. We find that argument waived, because it was not raised earlier. See Paper 12, 8 (warning that “any patentability arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived”). But we also find that it would be unpersuasive even if it had been raised earlier. No party has sought a construction of “URI” or “Uniform Resource Identifier,” and we conclude that the plain language would encompass domain names, which are a “uniform” way of “identifying” a “resource.”” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,917,856
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.