• Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2026 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–6, 11, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Doo and Amira; claims 12–19 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted tissue properties were not shown in Amira.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Federal Circuit. The court issued its decision in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp., No. 2024-1794, 2026 WL 587294 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2026) (“Medivis”) (Paper 40),1 affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, and remanding our Final Written Decision (Paper 35) for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed our “determination of no motivation to combine Doo and Amira” and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate whether claims 1–6 and 11–20 (“the Remanded Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,004,271 B2 (“the ’271 patent,” Ex. 1001) are unpatentable in view of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge over Doo and Amira. Medivis, slip op. at 9–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We issue this Final Written Decision on Remand pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 in an inter partes review involving Medivis, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and Novarad Corp. (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the entirety of the record in light of the Federal Circuit’s directives in Medivis, we hold that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–6, 11, and 20 are unpatentable; however, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 12–19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, except that we excise part of Petitioner’s definition to produce the following modified version: 4 Throughout this decision, we eliminate the parties’ italicization of reference names from quotations without noting “emphasis omitted.” 5 Doo, WO 2015/164402 A1, published October 29, 2015 (Ex. 1008). 6 Excerpt of Amira 5 User’s Guide, title through Chapter 2 (Visual Imaging 2009) (Ex. 1005). engineering, or a related field with several years of experience in the design, development, and study of augmented reality devices and . . . familiarity with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of data for medical procedures . . . . Our edit removes the alternative of “working with a team including someone with such familiarity” because one’s role in a team may be tangential to their personal experience with medical imaging. Regardless, had we adopted Petitioner’s original definition, our decision would not have changed.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the term “3D slices” has no apparent connection to the phrase “direct volume rendering.” Patent Owner’s argument appears to be that DVR “requires an image of the entire anatomical volume that is neither feature-specific nor segmented, [which] would seemingly require that all inner layers be displayed.” Reply 4; see Sur-reply 6–10 (not disputing Petitioner’s characterization). But, as Petitioner notes, the specification directly undermines this by teaching “display [of] a slice of the 3D data instead of a volume of the 3D data.” See Reply 4 n.2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:34–35). In other words, to the extent DVR would depict an image of the entire anatomical volume, displaying 3D slices “instead of a volume of the 3D data” implies the opposite of DVR. Even if “3D slices” somehow implied DVR, Patent Owner’s position is still untenable. Claim 1 does not recite “3D slices.” Instead, claim 1 recites “3D data” and “inner layers.” Ex. 1001, 18:54–65. Patent Owner fails to clarify the relationship between “slices,” “3D data,” and “layers,” and its expert even admits that slices and layers are two different things. See PO Resp. 13; Ex. 1022, 32:7–16 (agreeing that the words “slice” and “layer” are not “synonyms”), cited in Reply 4. We also agree with Petitioner that dependent claim 3 distinguishes slices and layers by reciting “slices of the projected inner layer.” Reply 4 (quoting Ex. 1001, 19:3–10). Thus, even if 3D slices somehow implied DVR, the language of claim 1 does not support limiting the claim this way.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “The determination of whether a document was publicly accessible “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For instance, courts routinely rely on the Wayback Machine to determine when a reference was first made available to the public. Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“District courts have taken judicial notice of the contents of webpages available through the Wayback Machine ‘as facts that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’”). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Medivis cannot rely on additional prior art”—Exhibits 1023 and 1024—“that was submitted after its Petition to carry its burden without leave from the Board.” Sur-reply 4. As Patent Owner did not file a motion to exclude these exhibits, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to disregard them. We also find Petitioner’s Reply argument proper because it directly responds to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner did not prove the public accessibility of Amira. See Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d, 919, 925 on issues previously raised.”). Petitioner’s Reply argument appropriately elaborates on the Petition’s contention that Amira was publicly accessible. Patent Owner also does not dispute the substance of Petitioner’s evidence. For example, Patent Owner does not address the substance of Mr. Frank-White’s declaration. We find that this evidence, including Mr. Frank- White’s declaration testimony, persuasively supports the public availability of Amira as of the date shown in the Wayback Machine URL. See Ex. 1024.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,004,271 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,004,271
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00339 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 23, 28, and 30 are unpatentable over Choi, Labaziewicz, and Yu; claims 1–3, 10–12, 24, 25, 32, and 33 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “We decline Patent Owner’s invitation to construe “during a frame” of “independently controlling simultaneous data acquisition with each of the first and second channels during a frame” by importing the extraneous limitations “at some point between the beginning and the end of the exposure interval during which the image sensors capture a single image.” As pointed out by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is unsupported by the language of claim 22 and the ’180 Specification because Specification does not disclose an exposure interval nor suggest “during a frame” is limited to an exposure interval. Patent Owner and its expert Dr. Saber cite only extrinsic evidence (Exs. 2006, 2009) to support its argument that claim 22 should be limited to an “exposure interval during which the image sensors capture a single image.” See PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2020 ¶ 64. Similarly, Patent Owner relies only on extrinsic evidence (e.g., Ex. 2011, 1; Ex. 2022, 1; Ex. 2020 ¶ 66) to limit “during” to “at some point between the beginning and the end.” See id. at 18. When considered in the context of claim 22 and the ’180 Patent Specification which do not limit “during a frame” to an exposure interval, we find that we cannot rely on Patent Owner’s citations to extrinsic evidence to yield a reliable construction for “during a frame.” As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not provide an explicit construction for “during a frame” to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the merits of the patentability challenges. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375. We apply the ordinary and customary meaning for “during a frame.” To the extent that an explicit identification of the ordinary and customary meaning may aid the understanding of our analysis, consistent with the language of claim 22 and the ’180 Patent Specification, we find that the ordinary and customary meaning for “during a frame” is “during the period of time that data for an image frame is acquired.” See Ex. 1001, code (57), 20:6–24, 25:23–35.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” and that “[l]ess experience may be necessary with additional education, and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’180 Patent Specification and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Owner to show that Labaziewicz is not prior art because the ’180 Patent is entitled to the earliest August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”). Patent Owner’s arguments fail to meet this burden of production because, aside from addressing deficiencies of written description support the ’854 Provisional Application provides written description support for all of the limitations of the claimed invention. See PO Resp. 60–64; PO Sur-reply 25–28. Specifically, Patent Owner does not address written description support in the ’854 Provisional Application for “independently controlling simultaneous data acquisition with each of the first and second channels during a frame”––limitation [22.3]––the heart of the parties’ claim construction disputes addressed above in Section II.A. See PO Resp. 60–64; PO Sur-reply 25–27. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not met its burden of production in coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the claimed invention in the ’854 Provisional Application. As a result, the burden of production does not shift back to Petitioner, and, therefore, the ’180 Patent is not entitled to the benefit of the August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Petitioner does not present arguments that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Matsushima to acquire data for images 62A and 62B at the argues that Matsushima renders obvious this limitation. See id. at 21, 23, 30; PO Resp. 33–34 (“[T]he Petition provides no further explanation why Matsushima renders this limitation obvious.”). In the Reply for the first time, Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would understand that Matsushima’s disclosure, including its multi-channel architecture, synchronous control of channels, and capturing two images that are scaled versions of the same scene, renders obvious simultaneous acquisition during a frame. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 49). We do not consider Petitioner’s belated argument because it exceeds the proper scope of a reply. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “respond” “does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Trial Practice Guide at II.I. (December 2025)(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23).10 A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. See id. For example, a “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,916,180 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,916,180
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2026 · IPR2025-00339 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 23, 28, 30, and 33 are unpatentable over Choi, Labaziewicz, and Yu under § 103; claims 1–3, 10–12, 24, 25, and 32 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” and that “[l]ess experience may be necessary with additional education, and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’180 Patent Specification and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Owner to show that Labaziewicz is not prior art because the ’180 Patent is entitled to the earliest August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”).” slip op. at 23

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

    “We do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments based on retrieval of data from CCD 18A and CCD 18B. Although Matsushima’s CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B are driven synchronously by timing generator 28 (see Ex. 1007 ¶ 27), Matsushima discloses that “accumulated signal charges are retrieved by CCD drive pulses applied by CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B, and are sequentially output from CCD 18A and CCD 18B as voltage signals (analog image signals) corresponding to each signal charge” (see Ex. 1007 ¶ 23) (emphasis added). In other words, regardless of whether CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B are driven synchronously by timing generator 28, Matsushima discloses that voltage signals corresponding to the accumulated 8 Petitioner’s citation erroneously includes ¶¶ 34–36 of Exhibit 1069. CCD 18A and CCD 18B sequentially––not output at the same time or simultaneously.” slip op. at 30

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “argues that Matsushima renders obvious this limitation. See id. at 21, 23, 30; PO Resp. 33–34 (“[T]he Petition provides no further explanation why Matsushima renders this limitation obvious.”). In the Reply for the first time, Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would understand that Matsushima’s disclosure, including its multi-channel architecture, synchronous control of channels, and capturing two images that are scaled versions of the same scene, renders obvious simultaneous acquisition during a frame. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 49). We do not consider Petitioner’s belated argument because it exceeds the proper scope of a reply. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “respond” “does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Trial Practice Guide at II.I. (December 2025)(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23).9 A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. See id. For example, a “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id. Petitioner clarifies that the Petition does not argue inherency. See Pet.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,916,180 mixed
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,916,180
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2026 · IPR2025-00222 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–11, 13, and 14 are unpatentable over Yu and Miyazaki; claims 15, 16, and 19 were not shown unpatentable over Matsushima.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “at, and before, the earliest claimed priority date of the ’158 patent . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2–3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” adding that “[l]ess experience may be sufficient with additional education, and likewise, less education may be sufficient with additional work experience.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–18). Patent Owner does not offer a competing definition or dispute Petitioner's articulation. Based on the entire record, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art because that characterization, we find, is consistent with the ’158 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We determine that the claims require a per-channel determination of integration time—that is, an integration time arrived at for each sensor or channel individually—and cannot be satisfied by a single global value merely applied uniformly across the sensors. We do not, however, read the independent claims to require that the per-channel integration times differ from one another.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We adopt the definition clearly and unambiguously set forth in the specification, which was likewise adopted by the Court in the related litigation. See Pet. 7–8, 55; Pet. Reply 1–2 (district court construing the term to mean “the time the image sensor collects and integrates signal from the scene”). The specification states that the integrated photo-charge “is directly related to the time the image sensor collects and integrates signal from the scene,” and that “[t]his is known as integration time.” Ex. 1001, 4:4–7. Accordingly, the ’158 patent demonstrates that the inventors indisputably acted as a lexicographer for the term “integration time.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “We construe “during a frame” to mean the period during which data for a single frame of an image is captured. The limitation is satisfied where the per-channel integration time is effectuated during the frame; it does not require that the integration time be re-determined mid-frame, nor does it require actuation of a “charge integration switch.” The specification’s only use of the phrase confirms this reading: “each camera channel is controlled during a frame under an independent integration time.” Ex. 1001, 3:45–50. Consistent with that usage, the specification describes selecting an integration time for each channel and then integrating the photo-signal “within a single frame of data,” and describes placing the charge-integration switch in a state to allow charge to accumulate for the selected period and then transferring the accumulated charge upon completion of the integration period. Id. at 4:51–54, 11:3–18. We decline Patent Owner’s proposal to require in-frame actuation of a charge-integration switch, for the same reason we decline to import that structure into “integration time.” We also decline to read the phrase to require mid-frame re-determination of the integration time, because the patent’s own embodiment selects an integration time and then integrates charge during the frame under that selected time. Ex. 1001, 4:51–54, 11:3– 18. So construed, “during a frame” is not redundant of the independentclaim limitation: it adds that the per-channel control occurs within a single frame (intrascene), as distinct from adjustment from one frame to the next (interscene).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 9,232,158 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,232,158
• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00430 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6–10, 14–18, and 22–24 are unpatentable; claims 4–5, 11–13, and 19–21 are not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that the ’690 patent does not limit the term “probe” to channel assessment. Pet. Reply 2–4. Reviewing the intrinsic evidence, the “Technical Field” of the ’690 patent states that “some embodiments relate to channel assessment probes,” implying others do not. Ex. 1001, 1:13–14. The ’690 patent further states that “receiver determined probes may be used in a variety of applications” including to “discover hidden nodes” and “off-site network diagnosis.” Id. at 2:20–27. In addition, the ’690 patent states that probes may be used for “network maintenance procedures,” to “replicate a potential problem, reach or discover a distant or previously undetected node on the network, or assist with network admissions procedures.” Id. at 4:25–38. Turning to the claims of the ’690 patent, the evidence of record does not establish that the independent claims recite anything unique or specific to channel assessment (although their scope covers that purpose). Furthermore, dependent claim 7 of the ’690 patent recites that the “probe” is used to diagnose a network problem, and dependent claim 13 recites that the “probe” is used to identify a hidden node. Restricting the independent claims to probes used solely for channel assessment would be contradictory to these dependent claims. Littlefuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (construction of term in independent claims should not render dependent claims superfluous or lacking scope).” slip op. at 20

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that a “physical layer probe” is “a probe that relates to the physical layer.” The term does not appear per se in the specification of the ’960 patent, nor in the prosecution history, but only in claims 9, 17, and 19. However, the term “physical layer” is well-known and is the first layer in the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) network model. See, e.g., Ex. 1021, 35–40, 69; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49–50. The physical layer is used to transmit digital bits over a network, and defines the timing, mechanical, and physical network characteristics required for transmitting the data bits. Hence, a “physical layer probe” is a probe that relates to the physical layer. We need not, and do not, construe the term further to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Realtime, Vivid Techs., supra. Having decided proper constructions for the disputed terms, we proceed in our analysis to consider the parties’ arguments concerning the challenge grounds. In the following sections, we apply the plain meaning of the claim terms, and as necessary, specify what the plain meanings are.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends as follows: A POSITA8 would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and three to four years of experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks. Additional education may substitute for experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 115–120). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed skill level because it is consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’690 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. In addition, we find the adopted skill level consistent with the education and experience that a POSITA would have had. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (citing factors to consider when determining level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 25

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Hence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by preponderant evidence that the Ranging Request (“probe request”) message includes CID and SS MAC address and other parameters (“first plurality of parameters”) which at least specify the CID (“content payload of the probe”) and the SS MAC address (“second node”) of the Ranging Response.12 We thus proceed to consider Petitioner’s contentions for the remaining limitations of claim 1, which are undisputed, and determine that claim 1 is anticipated by IEEE-802.16.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,284,690 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,284,690
• Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00140 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable over the stated grounds; claims 4–6 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed multi-coil alignment lacked prior-art support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had . . . a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, microelectronics, or equivalent and . . . two to three years of industry or research experience in the field of wireless energy transfer,” and that “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–44). Patent Owner does not contest this. See PO Resp. Petitioner’s proposed articulation is supported by testimonial evidence and appears to be consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’654 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:15–28. We adopt it for this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the evidence does not suggest (and Patent Owner does not explicitly argue) that the terms “transmitting antenna” and “receiving” antenna depart from the ordinary and customary meanings of those terms. Pet. 1–2. However, for the reasons discussed below, the outcome of our decision would be the same whether we adopted Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Thus, we need not adopt either party’s proposed construction for this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “spaced configuration are not confined to ferrite cores 32 and 3, and that at least a component of the flux lines will escape the cores. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 48–52; Ex. 1038 ¶ 54 Fig. 2. Indeed, the evidence suggests (and Dr. Horenstein acknowledges in his first declaration) that at least a component of flux will escape the core of even a traditional transformer. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 45–47; Ex. 1044, 6; Ex. 2001 ¶ 27. In his second declaration, Dr. Horenstein provides contrary testimony that in Odachi’s open configuration during alignment, cores 32 and 3 “act to confine or guide the magnetic flux lines, rather than radiate them into free space,” and “the flux lines would [not] leave the gap area and enter into the space distal to the magnetic circuit.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. But in view of Dr. Horenstein’s contrary position in his first declaration, and the lack of supporting evidence in his second, we do not find it credible. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (2022) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254 (Fed. Cir. 2022).” slip op. at 24

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

    “(4) Analysis We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that during the alignment process in Odachi corresponding to claim 13, there is a “spaced distance between the primary inductive coupler [230] and the secondary inductive receptacle 2” which is “reduced gradually and electromagnetic induction occurs between the coupler to the receptacle when the former coupler comes close to the latter receptacle.” Ex. 1005, 6:1–6. Thus, prior to any contact or precise alignment between the two cores, “an electromotive force is induced in the secondary coil 4 and this induced force is increased with the decrease in the spaced distance.” Id. at 6:6–8. At least in that spaced configuration, the evidence of record suggests that primary coil 31 produces a near-field component of flux into free space (the air space between the coils where there is no intervening core material) that is intercepted by secondary coil 4 to effect resonant inductive coupling, and that secondary coil 4 intercepts and receives the near-field component of flux in free space that is generated by primary coil 31 to effect resonant inductive coupling. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 48–52, 55. Thus, we find that Odachi discloses a “transmitting antenna” (coil 31) and a “receiving antenna” (coil 4) under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. We would reach the same finding under Petitioner’s proposed broader construction because the evidence suggests that Odachi’s coils 31 and 4 would have been considered “antennas” under the parties’ uncontested definition of that term, which is “a device that radiates and/or receives radio waves.” See id. ¶¶ 43–47, 53–54; Ex. 1032 ¶ 15 (Dr. Allen agreeing with this definition of “antenna”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 25 (Dr. Horenstein agreeing with this definition of “antenna”)). In addition, Petitioner persuasively shows that the free space between Odachi’s coils in the spaced configuration includes the “near-field region,” which includes the induction field around primary coil 31. See Ex. 2006, 498; Ex. 1045, 5:4–7; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 53–54). Dr. Horenstein’s testimony does not contradict this. Although he points out that there are separate terms for inductive, near, and far fields, he also acknowledges that “[t]he region of space closer to the antenna than the far field is the near-field region.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 37 (citing Ex. 2006, 275).8” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,466,654 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,466,654
• Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00083 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Socwell, Magid, and Sclater; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Prior to institution, Patent Owner argued that we should dismiss the Petition because it identifies the Petitioner as the California Corporation and not the Delaware Corporation. Paper 6, 23–24 (Preliminary Response); Paper 9, 1 (Preliminary Sur-Reply); Paper 12 (Conference Call Transcript); Paper 18 (Request for Director Review). In our Decision on Institution, we found Patent Owner’s argument, as applied to the facts of this proceeding, to be unpersuasive and corrected the caption to correctly reference Petitioner as the California Corporation, essentially replacing the “Inc.” with “LLC” in Petitioner’s name. Paper 13, 14–17; see also Paper 21 (Decision Denying Director Review).” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenOther

    “We find Dr. Giachetti’s testimony, alone, insufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSA, given Tollkien and Sclater, would have been motivated to look to one-way sprag-type clutches to solve the problem of unexpected forward motion of the running belt of a treadmill. Without a reference, like Magid, teaching that it was known to use a one-way clutch mechanism on a treadmill to prevent unexpected forward motion, we are persuaded by Patent Owner that Petitioner’s combination is impermissibly based in hindsight. See PO Resp. 42–47. After considering Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable over Tollkien and Sclater.” slip op. at 42

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “Declaration of Robert Giachetti, Ph.D. P.E) under FRE 401–402. Mot. 4 (citing FRE 401–402 in the heading). Patent Owner’s Motion, however, includes no substantive arguments directed to whether Giachetti Declaration is relevant admissible evidence or irrelevant inadmissible evidence. Mot. 4– 7. In its Reply, Patent Owner states: “While the Motion to Exclude does not expressly detail Exhibit 1036’s lack of relevance under FRE 401–402, the irrelevance is plain. Petitioner’s provision of new arguments in Reply, which is not allowed, renders such arguments irrelevant.” PO Reply to Mot., 1, n.1. Patent Owners argument is unpersuasive because it is a mere assertion without adequate explanation. The party moving to exclude evidence bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that the material sought to be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). Patent Owner’s mere assertion does not meet Patent Owner’s burden to show that Exhibit 1036 is irrelevant inadmissible evidence.” slip op. at 52

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “8 Patent Owner argues that we should not consider Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1036 and 1051 because the Reply and Exhibits relate to new arguments which should have been made in the Petition. PO Sur-Reply 4–5. We do not agree. Petitioner may rely upon Exhibits 1036 and 1051 to response to arguments raised in the Patent Owner’s Response. See PO Resp. (a ); Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronics, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, 1380–1382 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“we have continued to recognize that a petitioner is entitled under the APA to respond to new claim construction arguments made by a patent owner.”)” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 11,465,005 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,465,005
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01003 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 6, 15, 16, and 19 are unpatentable; claims 2, 8–10, 12, 14, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “Call” Terms (Claims 1, 8, and 15) The parties, and their respective experts, agree that “telephone call” (claim 1), “electronic call” (claim 8), and “electronic phone call” (claim 15) should be interpreted to mean “voice communication over an electronic network between at least two parties,” which was Patent Owner’s proposal in the district court case. See Pet. 16, 19 n.8, 58 (citing Ex. 1027, 9);1 Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 51–53; Ex. 2016, 176:10–177:6 (Dr. Kyriakakis agreeing that “there is live voice exchange during a telephone call” (in addition to “background noise”)), 180:22–181:11 (same). Based on our review of the ’090 patent, we agree as well and adopt that interpretation for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 1–col. 5, l. 44 (“Consider an example in which a listener sits at his kitchen table and has an electronic telephone call with his mother.”), Fig. 1. 1 When citing non-patent references, we refer to page numbers added by Petitioner in the bottom-right corner of the exhibit. Listening Person” (Claim 1) and “Sound Localization Point . . . Away From and Proximate to the First Person” (Claim 15) a) Procedural History As explained above, the parties did not propose any express interpretations in their Petition and Response. See Pet. 15; PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner argued, however, that “Petitioner and Dr. Kyriakakis misapprehend the scope and meaning of the [c]hallenged [c]laims.” PO Resp. 35–49. For example, Patent Owner argued that they “mischaracterize [c]laim 1’s scope as exclusively directed at binaural recording (but not binaural synthesis),” claim 8 “inherently us[es] binaural synthesis and HRTF processing,” and “binaural synthesis methods must be employed” for claim 15. Id. at 36, 46, 48–49 (emphasis omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner characterized the dispute between the parties as pertaining to the phrase “away from and proximate to,” where Petitioner proposed an interpretation of “a distance from” and Patent Owner allegedly was proposing “externalization of sound through HRTFs and [6 degree of freedom (6DOF)] tracking of the listener relative to the SLP that represents the talker.” Reply 2–12. Patent Owner responded in its Sur-Reply by stating that Petitioner “mischaracterizes” Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner “disputes constructions that [Patent Owner] never proposed,” and Petitioner’s focus on certain claim language for which Patent Owner “never proposed construction” was “misplaced.” Sur-Reply 1–2, 11. Patent Owner agreed, though, that the parties’ disagreement was “whether the claims require HRTF processing and whether [the] prior art teaches such processing.” Id. at 5; see Tr. 49:19–21 (Patent Owner agreeing that the dispute is “whether the claims require . . . processing with HRTFs”). dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 13

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

    “dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner relies on its earlier arguments regarding claim 17. Pet. 41; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184 (citing earlier analysis of Bedingfield). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Ballas’s wearable frame with head tracking and HRTF processing to Bedingfield-Andrea’s headphones” to “provide[] a more realistic virtual experience,” but does not make any argument that Ballas teaches changing an ITD. Pet. 39–43; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–191. For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that Bedingfield teaches changing an ITD. See supra Section II.D.6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 18 would have been obvious based on Bedingfield, Andrea, and Ballas under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 61

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “exceptional remedy of striking sentences in the Sur-Reply. Patent Owner filed the deposition transcripts of Dr. Welch and Dr. Roginska “only for the limited purpose of allowing the Board to understand the context of the cross-examination” and “does not rely on the[] [e]xhibits for any substantive argument in [the] Sur-Reply.” Sur-Reply v–vi. Patent Owner does not cite Exhibits 2029 and 2030 themselves in its Sur-Reply; it only cites Dr. Kyriakakis’s deposition transcript in this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that its arguments in the Sur-Reply are properly responsive to the Reply because they address Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony where he was questioned about the opinions in his reply declaration (but we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation arguments on the merits, for the reasons explained above). See Mot. to Strike Opp. 3; supra Section II.B.2.e. We also agree, under the particular factual circumstances presented, that filing Exhibits 2029 and 2030 was proper so the Board has the full context in which to evaluate Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is denied.” slip op. at 79

  Patent outcomesUS 9,226,090 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,226,090
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC et al. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01023 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–14 are unpatentable under §103; claims 2, 10, and 17–20 were not shown unpatentable under either asserted ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “research experience in virtual/augmented reality, including visual and audio modeling and rendering” and that “[a]dditional education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37). “Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s definition of [a POSITA].” PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we also adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “[t]he challenged claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction, including their plain meaning.” Pet. 5. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that no claim construction is required. See id. Patent Owner contends “that ‘no express constructions of the claims are necessary.’” PO Resp. 2 (citing Dec. 10). We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). To the extent that the meaning of any claim term is addressed, we use its ordinary and customary meaning as discussed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault disclose or suggest “highlighting, while the user is located in the zone and with a display of the WED, one of the multiple SLPs in the zone when the PED held in the hand of the user is pointed at one of the multiple SLPs in the zone” as required by claim 1. Even if we assume (without deciding) that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is an SLP, we agree with Patent Owner that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is “at the boundary” of its “safe area” (i.e., zone), not “in the zone” as required by limitation 1[c]. PO Sur-reply 4; Ex. 1005, 11:66–12:15. In other words, the virtual fence “defines the zone itself and thus is not in the zone” as the claim requires. PO Sur-reply 4. Petitioner has not addressed this difference between what is claimed and what is disclosed by Pedrotti or explained why the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault would have rendered placement of the virtual fence “in the zone” obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that it would have been obvious for highlighting to occur in response to the user pointing a PED at the virtual fence (or any other virtual image). Rather, Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pedrotti’s system could have used highlighting when the PED is pointed at one of the SLPs, without pointing to sufficient basis in Pedrotti’s disclosure or explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement highlighting in the manner claimed. Pet. 20–22. Dr. Welch similarly testifies, without sufficient support in Pedrotti, regarding what a person of ordinary skill in the art “could” have done. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 268–272, 275–276. Such reasoning is inadequate to demonstrate obviousness because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).” slip op. at 18

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner also makes a number of new arguments in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have used Pedrotti’s system to highlight other SLPs, such as Pedrotti’s virtual ‘weapon[s],’” relying in part on “additional references.” Reply 6–10. Petitioner, however, only briefly referenced virtual sword 802 in its Petition and did not advocate the same theories for limitation 1[c] in its Petition. See Pet. 13 (mentioning a “virtual weapon” in connection with limitation 1[a]), 19–20; Tr. 53:17–55:1. Accordingly, these arguments in the Reply are improper new arguments, which we do not consider. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74 (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (“CTPG”) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.”); Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,798,509 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,798,509
• Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00806 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 9–12, and 15–18 are unpatentable as obvious over either Roberts and Asokan or Suumäki; claims 6–8 and 19 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, supported by Dr. Schmidt’s testimony, has proposed that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a degree in computer engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, along with 2 years of professional experience in the fields of networking and network-based systems or applications, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience,” and would have been “aware of and generally knowledgeable about how devices were provisioned onto wireless networks, along with standards applicable to well-known methods for communication such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and NFC available at the time the ’615 patent was filed.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–39). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we considered the assertions of Petitioner that the terms of the ’615 patent’s claims do not require further construction and can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning. Dec. to Inst. 7 (citing Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–82). Patent Owner also does not assert any express constructions. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. Given the lack of controversy, we need not explicitly adopt or discuss any explicit constructions in this decision. 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 9

  • BurdenMixed

    “that the section of the Petition discussing claim 6 does not discuss the combination of embodiments; it merely asserts what would have been obvious in the context of the cited embodiment. See Pet. 36–37. See, e.g., In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), headnote 4, “Whether a rejection of a patent claim for obviousness is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” See also, Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. IPR2023-00342, 2024 WL 3165359, at *31 (P.T.A.B. June 25, 2024) (Distinguishing Stephan for simultaneous actions). Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and any discussion of claim 6, explaining its obviousness, must consider the obviousness case for the independent claim in its analysis. Petitioner’s observation that Roberts is agnostic as to how network configuration information is conveyed does not relieve Petitioner of the requirement of making that case in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 21

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s argument. Although Petitioner is correct that Roberts discloses different embodiments for conveying configuration information, those embodiments are distinct. See Ex. 1004, that the section of the Petition discussing claim 6 does not discuss the combination of embodiments; it merely asserts what would have been obvious in the context of the cited embodiment. See Pet. 36–37. See, e.g., In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), headnote 4, “Whether a rejection of a patent claim for obviousness is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” See also, Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. IPR2023-00342, 2024 WL 3165359, at *31 (P.T.A.B. June 25, 2024) (Distinguishing Stephan for simultaneous actions). Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and any discussion of claim 6, explaining its obviousness, must consider the obviousness case for the independent claim in its analysis. Petitioner’s observation that Roberts is agnostic as to how network configuration information is conveyed does not relieve Petitioner of the requirement of making that case in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,050,615 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,050,615

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.