- Samsara Inc. v. Motive Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 29, 2026 · IPR2025-00574 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed video overlay and transmission for manual review.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s contentions in this ground do not cure the issues for limitations 1D and 1E. Petitioner’s contentions in this ground involve combining Khan and Ali’s teachings of identifying a horizon line and lane lines with Choe. For example, Petitioner argues that “[u]sing predictive models for Choe’s lane and horizon prediction would have combined known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” and that “[i]mplementing these known mathematical models in Choe’s calibration system, according to their known functions, would have yielded predictable results.” Pet. 39. Petitioner further argues that “[u]sing predictive models for Choe’s lane and horizon prediction would have used a known technique (predictive models) to improve similar devices in the same way” and that “[u]sing predictive models for Choe’s lane and horizon prediction would have also applied a known technique (predictive models) to a known device (a manual annotator device) ready for improvement.” Pet. 40. Petitioner’s proposed combination, therefore, still relies on Choe’s teachings of transmitting an overlaid image to an annotator device. We note that Petitioner asserts that, “[o]nce Khan in view of Ali identifies the horizon and lane lines, it overlays the horizon line and/or lane lines on the video, as shown in the screenshots below.” Pet. 41–42. Although Petitioner mentions Khan and Ali’s teachings with respect to video here, Petitioner does not adequately explain how the teaching of an overlaid video would be combined with Choe’s single image annotator teachings. As discussed above, Choe discloses transmitting a single overlaid image to the annotator” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence and argument to explain how the additional teachings of Khan and Ali teach limitations 1D and 1E in combination with Choe. Petitioner, therefore, has not demonstrated unpatentability of claims 1–5 by a preponderance of the evidence. F. Obviousness over Choe and Workman (Claims 1–4) Petitioner asserts that claims 1–4 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Choe and Workman. Pet. 47–52; Pet. Reply 26–30. Petitioner asserts that, “if [Patent Owner] alleges that Choe does not explicitly disclose which predictive models it uses or whether it uses predictive models to identify the horizon line, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have searched for references that use predictive models and how such models were used,” which “would have led to Workman, which discloses predictive models to identify the horizon line.” Pet. 47. According to Petitioner, “[u]sing Workman’s predictive model to identify the horizon line would also have merely been combining known elements ([convolutional neural networks (CNNs)] and annotation for camera calibration) according to known methods to yield predictable results and used known techniques (CNNs) to improve similar devices in the same way.” Pet. 48–49. Thus, Petitioner relies on Workman to teach a predictive model to identify a horizon line. See Pet. 47–49. Choe with respect to limitations 1D and 1E. Indeed, Workman involves horizon line estimation in single images. See Ex. 1011, 10 (§ 5) (“We introduced Horizon Lines in the Wild (HLW), a new dataset for single image horizon line estimation, to address the limitations of existing horizon line detection datasets.”). Petitioner, therefore, has not demonstrated unpatentability of claims 1–4 by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner criticizes Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for not requiring “any training or experience in ‘automotive systems,’ precisely what the ’580 [p]atent relates to.” PO Resp. 7. According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a training and/or experience in design of software for camera/sensor systems in the automotive industry.” PO Resp. 8–9 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 35).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We need not construe expressly any claim terms to decide the issues before us. 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 6
Patent outcomesUS 11,875,580 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,875,580 - Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,203 - Tennant Company v. Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · IPR2021-00625 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Remand
Claims 13, 14, and 17–27 were not shown unpatentable because Tennant did not establish that Wikey or Davies inherently disclosed the claimed microbubbles and nanobubbles.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded our anticipation determinations as to claims 13, 14, and 17–27. Tennant, 11.1 The Federal Circuit further stated: “Because we vacate and remand to the Board to consider Tennant’s anticipation argument, we do not reach Tennant’s obviousness arguments (which depends on its contention that either Wikey or Davies produce nanobubbles).” Id. at 11. On September 19, 2024, we authorized the parties to file supplemental briefing, stating also that the “parties are not authorized to present new factual assertions, provide additional exhibits, or raise new arguments beyond those directed to the issues raised in the remand.” Ex. 3001. Pursuant to this authorization, Petitioner filed an Opening Brief on Remand (Paper 61; “Pet. Br. Rem.”) in support of its contentions. Patent Owner filed a Lead Brief on Remand (Paper 62; “PO Br. Rem.”) in support of its contentions. Petitioner filed a Reply Brief on Remand (Paper 66; “Pet. Reply Br. Rem.”). Patent Owner filed a Responsive Brief on Remand (Paper 65; “PO Resp. Br. Rem.”).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Accordingly, and in line with our previous determination that “Wikey appears to disclose each limitation of claim 13 except ‘microbubbles and nanobubbles having a bubble diameter of less than 50 microns’” (Final Dec. 20), we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Wikey inherently discloses microbubbles or nanobubbles. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Wikey discloses every limitation of claim 13.” slip op. at 56
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded our anticipation determinations as to claims 13, 14, and 17–27. Tennant, 11.1 The Federal Circuit further stated: “Because we vacate and remand to the Board to consider Tennant’s anticipation argument, we do not reach Tennant’s obviousness arguments (which depends on its contention that either Wikey or Davies produce nanobubbles).” Id. at 11.” slip op. at 3
Patent outcomesUS RE45,415 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham - Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00744 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, and 12–14 were not shown unpatentable because Halbert did not disclose the claimed ranks operating at the specified data rate.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not provide a different assessment of the level of ordinary skill, but Dr. Przybylski states that an individual with the level of experience identified by Petitioner “would have less knowledge and familiarity” than presumed by Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. Dr. Przybylski, however, provides no further discussion explaining this apparent disagreement with Petitioner, nor does he set forth what level of knowledge and familiarity a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had. Based on the complete trial record, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed skill level is consistent with the level of ordinary skill evidenced by the ’314 patent and the asserted prior art, and we adopt that skill level with the exception of the phrases “at least,” which introduce vagueness as to the amount of experience.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s interpretation. Taking Petitioner’s point that “‘specified data rate’ means only that the data rate is specified in some way” (Pet. Reply 4), we do not see how, once the rate is specified, claim 1’s later recitations of “the specified data rate” could refer to any other rate, as Petitioner’s arguments suggest. Petitioner argues that “it is clear that the ‘specified data rate’ that provides antecedent basis for later recitations of that term is merely the data rate specified for ‘communicat[ing] data’ between the ‘memory module’ and the external ‘memory controller of the computer (alteration by Petitioner). We agree with this statement, and later recitations of “the specified data rate,” therefore, refer to the data rate that is so specified. Petitioner provides no persuasive argument to support its position that later recitations of “the specified data rate” could be satisfied by data rates that are not the “specified data rate.”” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“PO Resp. 19; see also Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 68–72 (Dr. Przybylski’s testimony explaining this annotated figure). Halbert’s Figure 5 is a timing diagram for two consecutive read operations (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 16, 37), and Patent Owner includes annotations to show each of ranks 140 and 142 outputting data onto their respective data busses at half the rate that data are output from data interface circuit 120 on the DQ data line. In particular, Halbert explains that each of ranks 140 and 142 is “capable of performing m-bit-wide data transfers.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 30. On a read command, rank 140 sends m-bit-wide data to bi-directional data register 126 on line RDQ0 at the same time that rank 142 sends m-bit-wide data to bi-directional data register 128 on line RDQ1, as shown in Figure 5 between T7n and T8n. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 31–32, 39. Halbert discloses that register 126 or from register 128 to output to buffer 122, which are then output on line DQ. Ex. 1005 ¶ 33. Halbert explains that “[d]ata is serialized from the data registers onto the memory data bus by reading 2m bits into the data registers during one memory device read cycle, and then driving these bits, m at a time, through MUX 124.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 33. As shown in Halbert’s Figure 5, over one clock cycle (T7n–T8n), each of ranks 140 and 142 outputs one piece of m-bit-wide data, and over one clock cycle (T8–T9), those two pieces of m-bit-wide data are output on line DQ to the system memory data bus. Halbert explains that the second read operation proceeds in the same fashion as the first and that “[t]he net result is that the memory data bus transfers 4m bits of data in two memory bus clock cycles (four mbit transfers), with only two data accesses performed at each memory device on the module.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 42. Thus, Halbert’s memory module outputs data to the system memory data bus at twice the rate that each of ranks 140 and 142 outputs data. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 68–73 (Dr. Przybylski’s credible testimony explaining Halbert’s data rates).” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 10,489,314 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,489,314 - Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00745 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–20 and 22–33 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not adequately explain how the proposed combination would use active and non-active chip select signals.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have been someone with an advanced degree in electrical or computer engineering and at least two years working in the field, or a bachelor’s degree in such engineering disciplines and at least three years working the field,” and Petitioner identifies particular knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had. Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“C. Claim Construction We need not construe expressly any claim terms to decide the issues before us. 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 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“As outlined above, Petitioner presents reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have included chip select signals in Halbert’s Figure 4 device. See Pet. 20–31 (addressing limitations 15.4 and 15.5). But Petitioner’s contentions about the use of chip select signals do not address sufficiently how Halbert’s Figure 4 device would operate with active and non-active chip select signals, as recited in claim 15. Indeed, as Patent Owner points out (PO Resp. 12), Petitioner’s contentions for limitation 15.6 only rely on Halbert’s Figure 2 prior art device. See Pet. 31–32. Petitioner’s lack of explanation as to how active and non-active signals would affect the operation of Halbert’s Figure 4 device is significant, as explained below.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,489,314 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,489,314 - Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00794 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 6–8 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art combinations did not establish the claimed messaging through the server system.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Tr. 78:6–10. Patent Owner responded “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination.” Tr. 78:13–14. We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems.” See Inst. Dec. 10. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ289 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. media player Patent Owner contends that, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’289 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 92–93). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player.’” Pet. Reply 1. Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software. Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 24–27)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device.” Pet. Reply 2 (alteration in original). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Muthukumarasamy “controls delivery of selected media content and selects and controls the media devices that deliver the selected media content according to a media type of the selected media content.” Because Muthukumarasamy teaches that the media device displays media content from various disparate sources depending on the media type and media source, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood the media device loads an appropriate media player depending on the media type and source. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 47; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67). Petitioner, however, proffers insufficient evidence or argument that the content choices described in paragraph 47 of Muthukumarasamy would have led an ordinarily skilled artisan to understand a media player is obtained and loaded in the content presentation device. Rather, Dr. Bederson makes conclusory statements without providing evidence to support the assertions (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67).” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Muthukumarasamy discussed above. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more messages in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file,” and “identify a location of the particular media player.” Pet. 41–45. More specifically, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate control of internet content presented at the content presentation device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward.” Pet. 65. However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the content presentation device” (Pet. Reply 22), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required messages being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward teaches “receiving, in a server system, one or more messages from a personal computing device . . . wherein the one or more messages, . . . identify a particular media player for playing content from the file wherein the media player is a computer application operable to present content and control presentation of the content,” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 6. Additionally, because claim 2 depends from claim 1 and claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that the subject matter of claims 2, 7, and 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 8,904,289 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,904,289 - Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00795 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 5–9 were not shown unpatentable over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward because the claimed signals identifying a media player were not shown to pass through the asserted server system.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ251 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“1. Media player Patent Owner contends, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’251 Patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 81–92, 95)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 23–26)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (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 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We determine that Hayward does not cure the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy discussed supra. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more signals in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing the video content” (Pet. 38–41). More specifically, Petitioner contends “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward” (Pet. 15, 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 60, 102)). However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device . . .” (Pet. Reply 22 (emphasis omitted)), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required signals being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,356,251 - Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00793 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ528 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“‘media player’ in the ’528 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 83–91, 94)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 21–24)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (see Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)))).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded. Even if the zHub and the zNode would be used to control the volume on the TV on which the streamed content is displayed, this device cooperation does not show the particular messaging recited in the claim. More specifically, even under Petitioner’s scenario that the “Volume Up” command flows from the IED (“personal computing device”) through the zHub/zNode (“server system”) to the TV (“content presentation device”), this command does not “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file.” Petitioner has not shown any messages in Muthukumarasamy that “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file” and flow from the IED through the zHub/zNode to the content presentation device. Thus, Petitioner’s assertions about devices working together fall short of proving by preponderant evidence that Muthukumarasamy discloses the particular messaging contents and path recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,782,528 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,782,528 - Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00679 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 20, and 21 were not proven unpatentable; the asserted obviousness grounds failed for insufficient motivation to combine, teaching away, or missing claim limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed claims 13–19 on July 25, 2023, rendering Petitioner’s Grounds 4, 9, and 10 moot. Ex. 2008. Thus, our Final Written Decision does not address Petitioner’s Grounds 4, 9, and 10. The Board heard oral arguments in an in-person hearing conducted on July 27, 2023. See Paper 23.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) would have had a master’s or bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a related degree, and either at least 3–5 years of experience (with a master’s degree), or at least 5–6 years of experience (with a bachelor’s degree), in composite materials or additive manufacturing. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art accurately reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date . . . [, but r]egardless [of] the level of skill, . . . the Petition does not show the challenged claims are unpatentable.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art. See id. at 15 (“Patent Owner reserves the right to propose a level of ordinary skill in the art later in this proceeding, or in other proceedings.”). On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Although a more specific definition is not necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references. Neither party, however, advances information explaining how or why the result in this case would change based on the level of ordinary skill determined by the Board.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner advances no specific construction of any claim term, but rather proposes that “claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner asserts that the term “anchor” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which, according to Patent Owner, is “contact to which the path of composite material is adhered to enable pulling of the path.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2006, 2, 53). Petitioner responds that “[i]n the parallel litigation, the Court has construed ‘anchor point’ and ‘anchor’ as ‘a contact point to which the path is affixed and that serves as an origin point for the formation of the path.’” Reply 3. On the complete record, we determine that no claim term needs an express construction to resolve the controversy. C. GROUND 1 – ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 20 AND 21 OVER LIPSKER” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“combining multiple embodiments from a single prior art reference (Resp. 31), i.e., “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.” In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). On this record, Petitioner fails to provide any such motivation to combine the embodiment in Lipsker’s Figure 2 with those of Figures 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 to arrive at the subject matter of claim 20. Pet. 23–31. Rather, Petitioner merely points to the disparate embodiments of Figures 2, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 and portions of Lipsker’s disclosure pertaining to those embodiments, and asserts that Lipsker “discloses” the individual limitations recited in claim 20. See, e.g., id. at 25 (Petitioner, relying on Figure 2, asserting that “Lipsker discloses the preamble of Claim 20”), 27 (Petitioner, relying on Figure 5, asserting that “Lipsker discloses Element 20[a]”), 28 (quoting Lipsker’s descriptions of wire and adhesive dispensed separately as depicted in Figure 2, and asserting “Lipsker discloses Element 20 [c]”), 29 (pointing to Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C and asserting “Lipsker discloses Element 20[d]”). Pointing to disparate embodiments without providing a sufficient motivation to combine them is not enough to establish the obviousness of claim 20 as a whole. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (holding that a claim “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art”).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,744,708 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,744,708 - DISH Network L.L.C. / DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01041 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
DISH failed to prove claim 13 unpatentable as obvious over either Durand and Bennett or Goyal and Bennett.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We regard Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill as consistent with the prior art before us (see Okajima 261 F.3d 1355). Based on the present record, including the disclosure in the ’456 Patent, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine Petitioner’s asserted level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’456 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)). As we determine the four instances of “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation introduce ambiguity, we remove these terms from our definition. Accordingly, we determine an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a Bachelor of Science in one of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, as well as three to four years of experience in implementing resource reservations for UNIX-based computing systems, or a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as two years of experience in implementing resource reservations for UNIX-based computing systems.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any terms of claim 13 (Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review)).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“However, Petitioner has not set forth with specificity where Bennett teaches the request uses the one or more object references. Indeed, Petitioner has not explained how these two teachings of Bennett disclose the recited limitations with sufficient specificity or how one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Durand with these teachings of Bennett to achieve the recited limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that the combination of Durand and Bennet teaches the subject matter of claim 13. Therefore, based on the entire trial record, we determine Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 13 would have been obvious over Durand and Bennet under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 19
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In its Reply, as noted by Patent Owner (PO Sur-reply 11), Petitioner offers a new theory, pointing to a different system call of Goyal (Pet. Reply 19–20 (citing Ex. 1090 ¶ 144 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 352–354))). Petitioner contends this new argument is to address Patent Owner’s alleged contention that “‘quality of service’ must already be ‘provided’ at the same time when the correspondence to the ‘reference to an object’ is created (Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1090 ¶ 141)). Thus, in Dr. Negus’ Reply Declaration, Dr. Negus asserts Goyal teaches the recited “quality of service guarantees that correspond to a reference to an object” relying on the “int hsfq_move (int from, int to, .....)” which “is used to move a thread from one leaf node to another”1 (Ex. 1090 ¶ 144). Petitioner’s alleged reliance on the hsfq_move (int from, int to, …….) system call instead of the int hsfq_mknod (char *name, int parent, int weight, int flag, scheduler_id side) system call represents a change in Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions that is presented for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply (see Pet. Reply 19–20). We acknowledge that the Petition mentions a “move” function: “Additionally, system calls are used to remove, move, and administer nodes in the scheduling structure. Goyal also discloses several additional functions to manage the scheduling structure, including removing, moving, and administering nodes.” (Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 350–352 (citing Ex. 1007 § 4))). But the cited portion of Dr. Negus’ Declaration simply states that there are other system calls, including “int hsfq_parse(char *name, int hint),” “int hsfq_rmnod(int id, int 1 We note Dr. Negus refers to the system call as “int hsfq_move” (see e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 144, 352) although Goyal discloses the system call as “hsfq_move” (Ex. 1007 § 4). We consider Dr. Negus’ naming to refer to the same system call as disclosed in Goyal. mode),” and “int hsfq_admin(int node, int cmd, void *args)” and the system call “‘int hsfq_move(int from, int to, .....)’ which ‘is used to move a thread from one leaf node to another’” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 352; see also id. ¶ 144 (repeating the same information as paragraph 352)). Additionally, these teachings of Goyal are discussed in conjunction with the limitation “utilizing an application programming interface . . . to establish one or more quality of service guarantees” (id. ¶¶ 356, 359). Thus, Dr. Negus’ initial Declaration does not elaborate on the move function, and the Petition does not rely on the “hsfq_move” system call to teach the limitations of claim 13. Petitioner asserts that this argument in reply is to address “Patent Owner’s new claim construction position” (Pet. Reply 19). We disagree. As outlined above, the Petition does not identify where an object reference is “used in the request,” as specifically recited in claim 13. Petitioner’s new reply argument, therefore, attempts to fill in a gap in Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions from the Petition that was pointed out by Patent Owner. Under the circumstances here, we do not consider this a permissible reply argument (see Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“Petitioner 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.”)). Thus, we do not consider Petitioner’s newly presented contentions.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 6,725,456 not shown unpatentableClaim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,725,456
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.