• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2026 · IPR2024-01494 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 5, 6, and 9–20 not shown unpatentable over either Bowen and Soukup or Nagahama and Soukup under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’909 patent (2004), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” where “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Pet. 18–19. In the Decision on Institution, we agreed with and applied Petitioner’s proposed definition. Dec. on Inst. 9. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Both experts utilized Petitioner’s proposed definition. See Ex. 1024 ¶ 25; Ex. 2053 ¶¶ 29–30. Based on the full record developed during trial, including our review of the ’909 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’909 patent and cited prior art, we maintain the previously adopted definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “B. Claim Interpretation We interpret the claims of the challenged patent using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the [claims] in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such [claims] as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner argues that “the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. 15. We did not interpret any terms in the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 9–10. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Response. We conclude, based on the full trial record, that no term requires express interpretation to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove unpatentability of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” “‘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.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Trial Practice Guide § II.I, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trial-practice-guide (last updated Dec. 12, 2025). “While replies . . . can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply . . . that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.” Id. An indication that a new issue is improperly raised in a reply is where a petitioner submits “new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case” of unpatentability, such as a “newly raised rationale to combine the prior art references that was not expressed in the petition.” Id. That is the case here. Petitioner’s rationale in the Petition for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to lower Bowen’s 0.9 eV barrier height to 0.33 eV based on Soukup was that such an artisan would have expected lowering the barrier height to increase TMR. See Pet. 34–36. Faced with Dr. Bokor’s testimony on cross-examination, Petitioner presents a new theory in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have known what impact lowering the barrier height would have (increase TMR, decrease it, or have no impact at all), but would have expected it to change in some “uncertain” way, which is a “legally sufficient motivation” in Petitioner’s view. See Reply 6–10, 13–16, 23–25. In other words, “[r]ather than explaining how its original” position that lowering barrier height would increase TMR “was correct,” Petitioner articulated “an entirely new theory . . . absent from the [P]etition” after Patent Owner cross-examined Dr. Bokor and “pointed out the flaws of [Petitioner’s] position” in its Response. See Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Shifting arguments in this fashion is foreclosed by statute, [Federal Circuit] precedent, and Board guidelines.” Id.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Ultimately, the cross-examination testimony above is inconsistent with Dr. Bokor’s opinions in his declaration that, for example, “[i]t was understood to one of skill that lowering the barrier height to increase tunneling would have increased the TMR,” and “[o]ne of skill would have been motivated to adjust oxygen vacancy defects to improve TMR by lowering the barrier height.” See Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 176, 277 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 172 (“[O]ne of skill in the art would have been motivated to use [Soukup’s 0.33 eV] or similar height in an MgO MTJ to improve tunneling and hence TMR in Bowen.”). Accordingly, we do not find Dr. Bokor’s declaration testimony regarding a motivation to lower Bowen’s barrier height credible. It is Petitioner’s burden to provide a reasoned, evidence-supported explanation for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to lower Bowen’s 0.9 eV barrier height to 0.33 eV as disclosed in Soukup. See NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383; Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380; TriVascular, 812 F.3d at 1066. Petitioner’s reasoning in the Petition that lowering the barrier height (by introducing oxygen defects) would increase TMR is unsupported by evidence.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,968,909 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,968,909
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2026 · IPR2024-01090 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 1–3, 21, 29–31, 42–44, 54, and 62–65 not proven unpatentable because the asserted combination did not teach the third conditional limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s position that the language of the claim requires the fulfillment of all the listed conditions (for each “when” clause) to cause the performance of the recited function. As stated above, the natural reading of the conditions is that they are prerequisites; they must be satisfied for the program to perform the recited function(s). For the third scenario, for example, the condition that the first web page is displayed must be satisfied in order for there to be a hyperlink to a second web page, such that the program can detect whether the location of the first contact point corresponds to that hyperlink. Ex. 1001, 102:60−62, 103:32−33, 103:37−39. The duration of the first contact has exceeded the second duration threshold without ending that first contact, and with no movement of the first contact point. Ex. 1001, 102:66−67, 103:1−3, 103:33−36, 103:39−42.13 These conditions collectively set the characteristics of the gesture that endures for the required amount of time. “When” this particular gesture is detected, for 13 We note that other non-challenged claims, require determining that there is movement of the first contact and performing corresponding functions of displaying the movement. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 108:9−24 (Claim 40, which depends from claim 1). the required duration, and recognizing the hyperlink is selected on the displayed first web page, then the three functions corresponding to these conditions in the third scenario are performed. This “when-then” relationship is conditional, as the parties seem to agree; but, we find, it is also causal. Because the cause of outputting the feedback with the actuator, displaying a menu, and further displaying a portion of the second web page to which the hyperlink pointed is that all the conditions were satisfied as required by the claim. Ex. 1001, 103:43−55. This is the plain and straightforward reading of the “when” clauses in claim 1.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Thus, Petitioner’s mapping as described above does not meet the requirements of the third “when” clause. We find that neither the snippet of Blumenberg nor the preview of Bhumkar is displayed in Petitioner’s proffered combination when the conditions of the third “when” clause are met. The condition of determining that the duration exceeds the “activation threshold” has no relationship to whether the display of the snippet or the preview occur. Blumenberg displays the link preview or snippet upon exceeding the 0.2 seconds or “selection threshold.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 49. Thus, there is no conditional relationship, much less a causal relationship between the display of the link preview or snippet and the “activation threshold” to which Petitioner has mapped the condition of the third “when” clause. The substitution of the snippet with Bhumkar’s “quick view” under Petitioner’s “simple substitution” rationale does not remedy the deficiency noted here. The function of “further display at least a portion of the second web page” (i.e., the “quick view”) is causally related to the “selection threshold,” and has no correlation to the duration determination, that the “activation threshold” has been exceeded. See Tr. 9:8−20 (Petitioner’s counsel arguing that “[t]here’s got to be correlation between them.”). Indeed, without a show of causality, the recited “further display” limitation is rendered irrelevant, in the Blumenberg-Bhumkar-Griffin combination. There is no need to “further display” because it already has been displayed, untethered to any condition recited in the third “when” clause.” slip op. at 41

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “at the time of the alleged invention would have had a “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–37). In the Decision on Institution, the Board adopted the uncontested language quoted above in Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill. The Board however did not adopt additional statements proffered by Petitioner regarding the “extensive background knowledge and understanding” allegedly possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art (Pet. 6–7). Dec. on Inst. 9−10. Patent Owner agrees with the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted by the Board for purposes of the Decision on Institution. PO Resp. 12; see also Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 58−59. The specification of the ’581 patent describes an electronic device that allows for manipulation of user interface objects and, more specifically, the display of web pages through a user interface of a network browser application, according to contact with a touch-sensitive interaction surface. Ex. 1001, (54), Abstr. Consistent with the scope of the ’581 patent and the lack of dispute on the issue, we find that the level of skill in the art is reflected in a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Dr. Cockburn that the claims are not themselves programming code or even pseudo code. But they recite the functionality that the program instructions implement.15 We do not find useful Dr. Cockburn’s quibble with the word “instructions” recited in the claim as being too generic to import the understanding in the relevant art that programming logic is involved. Id. ¶ 55. Claim 1 recites more than mere “instructions.” As discussed above in Section II.E.1, the claim requires “one or more programs” and those “programs including instructions.” Ex. 1001, 102:56−59. We are persuaded by Dr. Mahon’s explanation concerning the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art and the implementation of instructions in programming logic that is executed by a processor, and that 15 Claim 42 is a method claim and does not recite the “program including instructions to” as claim 1 does. However, claim 42 does recite the processor and memory in parallel with the same functions recited in claim 1, and Petitioner has not argued that the scope of claims 1 and 42 differ in any material way. Ex. 1058 ¶ 55, n.3. Ex. 2008 ¶ 51. “from a software engineering standpoint, it would not be possible to implement a function that performs an action ‘when’ preconditions are met unless that function is designed to be executed because those preconditions have been detected.” Mahon Decl. ¶ 52. We credit Dr. Mahon’s explanations as they are reasoned and supported by the specification of the ’581 patent. Mahon Decl. ¶ 50. We are not persuaded by Dr. Cockburn’s rebuttal of Dr. Mahon’s reliance on the specification as supporting the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it dismisses the discussions of logic to implement the gesture detection and corresponding operations merely because these passages do not refer specifically to the three scenarios of the claim. Dr. Mahon’s discussion of general programming principles of conditional statements provides context relevant to the field of the invention. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319 (“extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean” but warning about the flaws inherent in this type of extrinsic evidence). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Dr. Mahon’s testimony confirms the understanding of the plain and natural reading of the claim language to require a causal relationship between the conditions and the functions.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,725,581 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,725,581
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 31, 2025 · IPR2024-01085 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–10, 17, 19, 22–26, 28–30, 32, 33, 36, 41, 48, 58–62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 73, 77, 82, and 83 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “The difference between the parties’ positions is solely that Petitioner includes “human-computer interaction” as a relevant degree and “human computer interfaces” as relevant working experience. We need not resolve that difference, because no matter which stated level of ordinary skill is applied, all of our findings and conclusions would be the same and because neither party asserts the other party’s expert is not qualified as an expert. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 9. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.5 C.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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))). Petitioner asserts that “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner agrees that “no formal constructions of any claim terms are necessary.” PO Resp. 4. We agree with the parties that no express construction of any claim term is necessary. D.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner (PO Resp. 13) that when Ording refers to user interfaces that are “intuitive and transparent,” “transparent” in that context does not mean optically transparent but something readily understandable, like the preceding word “intuitive.” That makes more sense in context. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Mahon, explains that Ording’s paragraph 28, where the phrase “intuitive and transparent” is found, is not concerned with optical transparency, but with increasing user satisfaction with portable devices by offering multifunctional operations on user interfaces based on finger input. Ex. 2012 ¶ 54. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Cockburn explains why “transparent” in that context should mean optically transparent. We credit the testimony of Dr. Mahon, and reproduce paragraph 28 of Ording below: The various applications that may be executed on the device may use at least one common physical user interface device, such as the touch screen. One or more functions of the touch screen as well as corresponding information displayed on the device may be adjusted and/or varied from one application to the next and/or within a respective application. In this way, a common physical architecture (such as the touch screen) of the device may support the variety of applications with user interfaces that are intuitive and transparent. Ex. 1006 ¶ 28. We credit Dr. Mahon’s testimony that “Ording is addressing [in paragraph 28] user interfaces that are user-friendly and intuitive to navigate and operate.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 55.” slip op. at 33

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

    “The Zlider widget already is the least intrusive in the form as disclosed in the Ramos Paper/Ramos Video, placed off to the side of image content, not above and overlapping with image content. Petitioner’s semitransparency solution is for a self-created problem that otherwise does not exist, i.e., blocking the image by placing the Zlider widget directly over image content in Ording’s device. This is not reasoning with rational underpinning for making the Zlider widget partially semitransparent. Even assuming that the Zlider widget is properly placed directly over a camera image, making the Zlider widget semitransparent does not solve the intrusion problem, because the image and the Zlider widget may obscure each other, as shown in these illustrations provided by Patent Owner: [The illustrations show interference between a semitransparent Zlider widget and an underlying image] In its Reply, Petitioner asserts that it would have been well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to make adjustments to address a problem caused by such obscuring, such as by making the Zlider widget more visible as shown below: [The illustration shows one way Petitioner asserts one of ordinary skill in the art may apply to solve the obscuring issue (Reply 5–6)] Petitioner’s argument is misplaced. Although there may be graphic display techniques one of ordinary skill in the art may adopt to reduce the visibility problem if the Zlider widget were moved to directly above the image content as Petitioner proposes, that does not cure the problem of lacking a reasonable motivation to place the Zlider widget of the Ramos Paper/Ramos Video directly over image content. Still, there is the least obscuring and the least intrusion with the Zlider widget remaining where it is shown to be in the Ramos Paper/Ramos Video, side-by-side relative to the image content. It is irrational to make a modification that creates a problem, solely on the basis that a solution may be available to reduce the severity of the problem. Indeed, such a strained rationale shows that hindsight has played a part on Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have put the Zlider widget over content as required by the claims.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,649,580 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,649,580
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Maxell LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00777 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 16–27 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to account for limitations 16[b] and 16[i] and their counterparts across the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Human Computer Interaction, or a related technical field, with at least one year of experience working in the field of user interfaces and/or content management.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2040 ¶ 53). The Decision on Institution adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 10. We find Patent Owner’s stated level to be less precise than that proposed by Petitioner in that the modifier “at least” used by Patent owner imposes no upper bound on the amount of experience possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, Patent Owner states: “The difference between the Board’s definition and Patent Owner’s (EX2040. ¶53) does not change the arguments set forth herein.” PO Resp. 11. Thus, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.4 4 All of our findings and conclusions would still be the same, however, had we applied Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, Petitioner does not assert that the district court’s construction is incorrect. We agree with Patent Owner that the district court’s construction is better than Petitioner’s proposed construction, because for reasons indicated by Patent Owner, which are not disputed by Petitioner, settings in the computer, e.g., dedicated folders for each user are the user profiles, rather than simply data alone of any kind. Further, when asked about the appropriateness of the district court’s construction, counsel for Petitioner expressed that Petitioner has no objection to the Board’s adopting the district court’s construction for “user profile”: JUDGE LEE: So, you’d be fine with just going with the District Court’s construction? MR. HEINTZ: Yes, Your Honor. Tr. 15:22–24. For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the district court’s construction for “user profile,” i.e., “a collection of settings and information associated with a user.”” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “PO Resp. 30–31 (Figure 26 omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner still does not provide an articulated reason for placing user profile selection buttons, labeled with user names, within Horn’s panes 2601 or 2602. Reply 12–14. Although Horn does describe personalized profile, Petitioner points to no disclosure of Horn as to how a user would have selected his or her own profile from among a plurality of user profiles. Petitioner presents no reason for placing these user profile selection buttons, labeled with user names, gleaned from or suggested by Baumgartner, within either pane 2601 or pane 2602 in Horn’s workspace view. Further, pane 2602 contains “a list of all collections defined by MFS and the user,” and pane 2601 lists the source examined by the user to create his or her collections. Ex. 1005, 19:41–46. That disclosure suggests the contents of panes 2601 and 2602 are tied to one particular user. No rational basis is articulated by Petitioner to place user profile selection buttons within these panes which appear to be in the profile space of one user. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not adequately accounted for limitation 16[b].” slip op. at 22

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

    “The test for sufficiency of a written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether the earlier application’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The specification must “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Id. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained: One shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. Id. (“[T]he applicant must also convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.”) (emphasis in original). One does that by such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention. Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, see Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038, 34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed.Cir.1995) (“[T]he prior application need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims. . . .”), the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,017,815 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,017,815
• Visa, Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 22, 2025 · IPR2024-00488 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable because the Petition did not establish the claimed second OVER file over Oborne or a sufficient basis to combine Stafford and Purves.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. Inst. Dec. 9–13 (referring to the ’854 patent Specification, the language of claim 1, and Dr. Shamos’s testimony). However, we did not determine whether an “OVER file” included “tokens” as a general matter, or further elaborate on what additional characteristics might be required to qualify as an “OVER file,” because it was not necessary for purposes of Institution. Id. Moreover, we determined that Petitioner had made a sufficient showing that Oborne’s tokens qualified as “OVER files.” Id. at 11, 24–31. Patent Owner argues that no construction is required, but, regardless, “the claims may be confirmed under the Board’s construction.” PO Resp. 11; Sur-reply 1. Petitioner also does not dispute our preliminary construction. Reply 1. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is treating the Institution Decision’s construction “as requiring that the virtual representation itself (not merely the OVER file) be used for verification of the credential,” even though “the claims impose no such requirement on the virtual representation.” Reply 1–2 (citing PO Resp. 49–50). “For example,” Petitioner asserts, “verification in subsequent claim elements involves the OVER file, and while the OVER file ‘compris[es]’ the virtual representation, it may encompass other things, as PO’s expert admits.” Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1047, 30:16–31:24; Ex. 1048 ¶ 27). We will consider this issue further below when construing the term “verified by an issuing agency.” Based on the full trial record, we maintain our determination in the” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “In its Response, Patent Owner stated that it “agrees in substance with the Board’s construction” of this term, and clarified its understanding of that construction as requiring that “the issuing agency has verified the ‘virtual representation’ (and not the ‘credential’) to be ‘a first official representation of the original credential.’” PO Resp. 11–12. In its Reply, Petitioner points to Patent Owner’s reliance on an example in the ’854 patent Specification involving the checking of a driver’s license identification number against a DMV database to show verification of information in an OVER File generation request. Reply 2 (citing PO Resp. 14–16; Ex. 1002, 6:35–39, 6:54–65). Based on this portion of the Patent Owner Response, as well as portions of Dr. Malek’s deposition, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner “admits that a virtual representation of the credential may be ‘verified by an issuing agency’ by checking credential data against an issuing agency database.” Id. (citing Ex. 1047, 37:24–41:1, 41:2–22). In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner misinterprets its discussion of the DMV example, and contends that what Patent Owner was actually arguing based on that example is that the “credential” (the “OVER file”) is verified, not that “credential data” is verified. PO Sur-reply 1–3. After considering the full trial record, we adhere to the construction in our Institution Decision interpreting the claim language at issue “to require that an issuing agency ha[s] verified a virtual representation in an OVER file as being an official representation of a credential.” Inst. Dec. 15–16. In light of Patent Owner’s statements in its Sur-reply, we further clarify that this construction encompasses (1) considering the OVER file as the credential and verifying the OVER file, or (2) verifying a virtual representation of the credential contained within the OVER file.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner “agrees with [Petitioner’s proposed] definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 37–41). In the Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art to be reasonable and consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the prior art of record. Inst. Dec. 8. Given that Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, we continue to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Although we agree with Petitioner that Oborne teaches that “‘device fingerprinting may be utilized’ to provide ‘additional security’ for use of Oborne’s tokens,” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 26 (emphasis added)), we do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments related to “device fingerprinting.” Petitioner also relies on testimony from Dr. Shamos to support its position. However, Dr. Shamos’s cited testimony in paragraph 239 merely repeats what is stated in the Petition, does not provide citation to any other evidence of record, and does not provide any further explanation as to why one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use device fingerprinting to tie a given token to a given device such that the token for the second device would be invalid in the first device. Ex. 1005 ¶ 239. Dr. Shamos refers to Oborne’s disclosures on “digital fingerprinting” and a client’s MAC address in the token data structure. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 26, 47). We have considered Petitioner’s arguments in light of Oborne’s disclosure, but find Dr. Malek’s responsive testimony to be more persuasive. We agree with Dr. Malek that, in Oborne, “device fingerprinting simply refers to identifying a device and the user associated with that device.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 111. Specifically, paragraph 26 of Oborne (quoted above) discloses authentication of a user, where “device fingerprinting” is utilized to verify a user’s identity where a user exclusively uses a client device such as a smartphone or laptop computer. Ex. 1011 ¶ 26 (emphasis added). The use of the device fingering for determining the device identity in order to authenticate a user is corroborated by the disclosures in paragraph 47 of Oborne which refer, in part, to the “<client_details” which can include a “<client_type>smartphone” and “client_fingerprint>font list, MAC address, memory size, memory.” Id. ¶ 47 (emphasis added). So, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, we do not discern any disclosure in Oborne that “device fingerprinting” ties a token to a particular device. See Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 26, 47. Rather, Oborne’s disclosures support Dr. Malek’s testimony that “device fingerprinting could be used to limit a token to a set of fingerprinted devices, such as each device belonging to the user.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 113. Moreover, Petitioner (and Dr. Shamos’s) statement that “the first device’s fingerprint would not match” the fingerprint for the second device merely provides a possible outcome of device fingerprinting, but does not explain why one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use device fingerprinting to make the “second device’s token . . . invalid in the first device,” or make the “token for a second device . . . a new credential,” or point to disclosures in Oborne that would support such a motivation. Id. Thus, we find that Petitioner’s contentions as to this limitation lack sufficient specificity to explain how Oborne teaches the limitation. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Ultimately, it is the petitioner’s burden to present a clear argument.”); Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’ ” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). We further agree with Patent Owner that Oborne’s disclosure of” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 9,954,854 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,954,854
• Microsoft Corporation v. Interdigital Patent Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00538 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held all challenged claims of the ’933 and ’054 patents not unpatentable because the claims were entitled to the December 22, 2009 priority date, making the asserted prior art unavailable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the time of the invention as someone that would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one to three years of experience working with wirelessly connected mobile devices that used common wireless communications protocols such as Bluetooth and 802.11.” 537 Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 29–32). Petitioner also contends that this description “would not differ materially between December 2008 and June 2013,” the earliest possible priority date for the patents-at-issue and the priority date alleged by Petitioner, respectively. Petitioner further contends that more education “would compensate for less work experience and vice versa.” Id. Petitioner. 537 PO Resp. 6−7; 538 PO Resp. 6−7. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description as our own. We adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art particularly because it specifies having one to three years of experience working with wireless devices that use Bluetooth and 802.11.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner construes the claims to have their “plain and ordinary meaning” and contends “that no terms invoke means-plus-function analysis.” 537 Pet. 17–18; 538 Pet. 18−19. Patent Owner does not contend that any terms require construction. 537 PO Resp. 6; 538 PO Resp. 6. We have not identified any terms that require construction for us to decide the threshold issue of priority. And given that the parties have no disputed terms, no claim terms are hereby construed.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “The written description requirement is satisfied when “the missing descriptive matter” is necessarily present in the original “application’s specification such that one skilled in the art would recognize such a disclosure.” Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, it is sufficient to show that the written description actually or inherently discloses the claim element. TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118−20 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We also note that Patent Owner argues that the field of the 948 application is a predictable application of wireless communications, which, compared to other complex and unpredictable technologies, would require a lower level of detail to satisfy the requirement. See Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“the level of detail required . . . varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.”); 537 PO Resp. 26−27; 537 Edwards Decl. ¶¶ 82, 87; 537 Surreply 8.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011); PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). At issue in the instant proceedings is the first requirement, whether the written description of the 948 application is sufficient, because Petitioner contends that the claims of the ’933 and ’054 patent are not entitled to claim priority to ancestry applications under 35 U.S.C. § 120. 537 Pet. 18.43 We disagree with Petitioner because we find that the claims are supported by the written description of the 948 application disclosure.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,173,054 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,173,054
• Microsoft Corporation v. Interdigital Patent Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00537 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held all challenged claims of the ’933 and ’054 patents not unpatentable because the claims are entitled to priority to December 22, 2009, making Forutanpour not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “VI. ANALYSIS OF UNPATENTABILITY Because of our determination that the priority date of December 22, 2009 is appropriate, we conclude that the Forutanpour reference (a U.S. patent application published on April 7, 2011) is not prior art. presented in either Petition. VII. CONCLUSION Having reviewed the argument and supporting evidence of record, and after a full and fair hearing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims of the ’933 and ’054 patents are unpatentable.” slip op. at 36

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Thus, we find that the 948 application reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors contemplated the communication of wireless devices to continue using the known method of file/data transfers via Wi-Fi and that the technique for device discovery using Bluetooth would additionally provide environment information useful for assessing which nearby device has the TapApp functionality. Disclosure of the knowledge of wireless radio dialogue between devices to collect further information to provide a particular location of a device informs a person of ordinary skill in the art that the 948 application was not limited to using only Bluetooth for the method performed by the WTRU, culminating in data transfer.” slip op. at 23

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “sufficiency of the written description, we conclude that the 948 application sufficiently describes Wi-Fi transfer for data transmissions in WTRUs even if the method also uses Bluetooth for selecting target WTRUs. Accordingly, the claims of the ’933 and ’054 patents are entitled to the priority date of December 22, 2009, the date of the 948 application. VI. ANALYSIS OF UNPATENTABILITY Because of our determination that the priority date of December 22, 2009 is appropriate, we conclude that the Forutanpour reference (a U.S. patent application published on April 7, 2011) is not prior art.” slip op. at 36

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “F. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner identifies a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention as someone that would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one to three years of experience working with wirelessly connected mobile devices that used common wireless communications protocols such as Bluetooth and 802.11.” 537 Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 29–32). Petitioner also contends that this description “would not differ materially between December 2008 and June 2013,” the earliest possible priority date for the patents-at-issue and the priority date alleged by Petitioner, respectively. Petitioner further contends that more education “would compensate for less work experience and vice versa.” Id. Petitioner. 537 PO Resp. 6−7; 538 PO Resp. 6−7. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description as our own. We adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art particularly because it specifies having one to three years of experience working with wireless devices that use Bluetooth and 802.11.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,737,933 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,737,933
• Mianyang Boe Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. / Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01075 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to show claims 1–6, 10, 12, 17–19, 21–23, 40–47, 51, and 52 unpatentable because the cited art did not teach or suggest a pixel defining layer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we again adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. It is supported by the testimony of Dr. Pattison, and appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). We find Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill to be imprecise, because Patent Owner does not specify the amount of experience possessed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. The unbounded reference to “experience” is vague and overly broad, as it could mean 1 year of experience or over 30 years of experience, for example. In addition, the ’578 patent is directed to “a pixel arrangement structure of an (OLED) [organic light emitting diode] display” (Ex. 1001, 1:22–23), whereas Patent Owner’s proposed experience is tied to “active-matrix displays.” PO Resp. 5. Given that the field of OLED displays includes both passive and active matrix designs (see generally Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 40–56), we see no reason to restrict the relevant experience to active matrix displays. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner has failed to show that the cited art teaches or suggests a “pixel defining layer” as recited. Neither party in this proceeding or in the ITC Investigation argued that “pixel defining layer” as recited in the challenged claims required construction, and neither party presented any arguments regarding the construction or meaning of this term.6 Pet. 13; PO Resp. 4–5. 5 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) requires that a petition contain a statement identifying how a challenged claim is to be construed. 6 In our Decision instituting trial, we stated that “[i]f either party contends that explicit claim construction is necessary in order to make a final determination whether or not any challenged claim is unpatentable based on the arguments and evidence presented, it should clearly explain why during We give the term “pixel defining layer” as recited its plain and ordinary meaning. For purposes of this decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. Petitioner Has Not Shown That the Cited Art Teaches or Suggests All the” slip op. at 21

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

    “or suggestion in Matthies of a pixel defining layer, because there is none.” PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 187); see also PO Sur-reply 15–17. Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have understood that Matthies employs (or at least could obviously employ) the claimed ‘pixel defining layer.’” Pet. 23. An allegation that a skilled artisan would have understood that the prior art “could obviously” be modified to include an element of the claimed invention does not establish that the prior art teaches or suggests such recited element. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 24

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

    “require for the same reasons set forth above.”). And, in discussing motivation to combine the teachings of Matthies and Yamada, Petitioner articulates no reasoning to support modifying Matthies’ structure based on Yamada to yield a “pixel defining layer.” See Pet. 69–75. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Petition failed to identify any teaching or suggestion in Matthies of a pixel defining layer, because there is none.” PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 187); see also PO Sur-reply 15–17. Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have understood that Matthies employs (or at least could obviously employ) the claimed ‘pixel defining layer.’” Pet. 23. An allegation that a skilled artisan would have understood that the prior art “could obviously” be modified to include an element of the claimed invention does not establish that the prior art teaches or suggests such recited element. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 11,594,578 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,594,578
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00847 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground because the evidence did not establish the claimed data-path delay circuit.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision and with the exception of the qualifier “at least” with respect to experience which renders the level of ordinary skill in the art ambiguous and may encompass levels beyond ordinary, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’608 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “1[e], together with limitation 1[f], and note that we are not performing claim construction of a specific claim term or phrase per se. Claim 1 of the ’608 patent recites that “each respective buffer circuit including a data path corresponding to each data signal line in the respective set of data/strobe signal lines” [limitation 1[e]] and “wherein the data path corresponding to the each data signal line includes” . . . “a delay circuit configured to delay a signal through the data path by an amount . . . ” [limitation 1[f]]. Ex. 1001, 19:36–55 (emphasis added). The operative issue is the identification of the “data path” that is claimed in claim 1. The claim differentiates between data signal lines and strobe signal lines. Limitation 1[e] identifies that “a data path” corresponds to the data signal line in the set of data/strobe signal lines; that is, it is a data path that is in the data signal line. The data path claimed, therefore, is not in a strobe signal line of the set of data/strobe signal lines. Limitation 1[f] confirms this understanding, reciting “the data path,” (with the antecedent of “a data path” of limitation 1[e]), that corresponds to each data signal line, and which includes a delay circuit that delays a signal through the data path. Patent Owner refers to Figures 3, 4A, and 4B of the ’608 patent, which confirms this understanding of the language of claim 1 in that it provides written description support for the reading of the explicit language of claim 1. See PO Sur-reply 1–2. These figures, as well as their associated descriptions, support that there are different transmission lines (data paths) with a separate signal transmission line for transmitting/receiving data signals and a separate strobe line for transmitting/transmitting strobe signals. See Ex. 1001, 10:31–11:8, 11:20– 45, Figs. 3, 4A–4B, see also id. code (57) (identifying that the “data path” corresponds with the data signal line in the set of data/strobe signal lines).” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) [the party against whom collateral estoppel is being asserted] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action. Google LLC, 54 F.4th at 1381 (citing In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (emphasis added)). The issues in this proceeding and those at issue in the -00236 IPR are not identical. The claims of the ’035 patent and the instant ’608 patent are different. Claim 1 of the ’035 patent recites “each respective buffer circuit including data paths for transmitting respective data and strobe signals associated with the first memory operation and logic configured to respond to the module control signals by enabling the data paths,” “wherein the logic is further configured to obtain timing information based on one or more signals . . . to control timing of the respective data and strobe signals on the data paths.” Ex. 1031, 19:35– 45. Claim 1 of the ’035 patent explicitly recites that the data paths have data and strobe signals transmitted on them. That is unlike claim 1 of the ’608 patent at issue here—claim 1 of the ’035 patent does not recite that the “data path” is “corresponding to each data signal line in the respective set of data/strobe signal lines,” as claim 1 of the ’608 patent does.” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredGranted in part

    “response, but may not raise “in reply, ‘an entirely new theory of prima facie obviousness absent from the petition,’ even if the new theory is responsive to the patent owner’s response or the Board’s institution decision.” Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 10,268,608 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,268,608
• Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 25, 2024 · IPR2022-01223 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5 were not shown unpatentable over Yegoshin, Bernard, Johnston, and Preiss under § 103 because the evidence did not establish multiplexing signals.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “communication device for multiplexing signals.” Ex. 1001, 12:2–3 (emphasis added). The language in the preamble does not support adopting Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “multiplexing” to mean that “the connections may be used simultaneously or sequentially for combining multiple data paths into a single path,” because signals are being multiplexed, not connections or data paths. Pet. Reply 10. No connection is recited in the preamble with regard to multiplexing.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 (file history of the ’075 patent), 12; Ex. 2003 (Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief from related litigation), 40–41; Ex. 2023 (Claim Construction Order from related litigation), 7). “Petitioner does not dispute that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting.” Pet. Reply 9 (citing PO Resp. 9–10; Ex. 2003, 45–46). Based on the full record, we adopt the parties’ agreement that the preamble is limiting. See also Ex. 2003, 45–46; Ex. 2023, 7.” slip op. at 9

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

    “show by a preponderance of the evidence that Yegoshin teaches or would have been understood to reasonably suggest “multiplexing signals” and that Bernard “includes or operates as a multiplexer for combining the data packets.” See Pet. 32–40. Because Petitioner does not show multiplexing signals in any of the asserted references, Petitioner does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that its proposed combination of Yegoshin, Bernard, Johnston, and Preiss would have rendered obvious “[a]n IP-enabled communication device for multiplexing signals,” as recited by claim 1. Also, because Petitioner fails to show Yegoshin teaches or would have been understood to reasonably suggest multiplexed signals and fails to show that Bernard “includes or operates as a multiplexer for combining the data packets,” Petitioner’s asserted motivation to modify Yegoshin in view of Bernard for “multiplexing signals” lacks rational underpinning. Weighing the underlying factual determinations, a preponderance of the evidence does not persuade us that claim 1 of the ’075 patent is unpatentable over Yegoshin, Bernard, Johnston, and Preiss. Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361.” slip op. at 44

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not credit Petitioner’s cited testimonial evidence because, for the reasons above, Yegoshin and the full record do not support it. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79, 80. We, instead, credit Patent Owner’s cited testimonial evidence because Yegoshin and the full record better support it. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 50, 51, 55–56, 58–61; see also Ex. 2025, 65:19–66:4.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,319,075 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,319,075

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.