• Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco NVNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 5, 2026 · IPR2025-00598 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–31 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the asserted combinations did not teach required claim limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “admissions by Patent Owner in litigation, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and five years of work experience in a related field” and that “[a]dditional educational experience could substitute for some of the work experience.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37). “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art (Petition, 5) at this time.” PO Resp. 6. On the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is uncontested and is consistent with the technology described in the ’347 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “In the Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner accept[ed] the Petition’s claim construction.” Prelim. Resp. 6. However, in the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner argues that “the claims of the ’347 Patent require no construction as they are valid under their plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 6. Based on the complete record, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions of any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Beel actually discloses the following: [0321] On the peripheral device 32 the video packets are received at the corresponding plug and play port, e.g. the USB port 11, read by the Human Interface Driver (HID) interface handler 13, unpacked to remove HID protocol headers in an unpacker 20 and then transmitted to the communications network by a transmitter 21. The network can be wireless for example WiFi or LiFi network. [0322] Having been routed over a communications network to the base unit 33, the incoming stream is read from the communications interface such as a WiFi access point 22, unpacked in an unpacker 25, decoded in a decoder 26 and then inserted into a suitable composition such as an OpenGL based composition in the compositor 29 for display on a central display device. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 321–322 (emphasis added to portions quoted by Petitioner). Patent Owner notes that “[t]he Petition mistakenly cites to ¶ 322 of Beel but quotes ¶ 321.” PO Resp. 20 n.3. However, it appears that Petitioner has grafted together a portion of paragraph 321 that introduces peripheral device 32 with a portion of paragraph 322, which discusses features of base unit 33. However, this grafting has been done in such a way as to convey (incorrectly) that peripheral device 32, not base unit 33, includes unpacker 25, decoder 26, and compositor 29 that process the first processed video data received by the first peripheral device to generate second video data. Dr. Almeroth’s testimony, which copies Petitioner’s incorrectly altered quotation to paragraph 322 of Beel, is unreliable as to this claim limitation and is entitled to no weight.4 Thus, Petitioner has no expert testimony on which to rely for this claim limitation.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “5 At the oral argument, when challenged on its reliance on paragraph 322, Petitioner argued that paragraph 321 of Beel teaches this limitation. Tr. 22:26–23:24. Petitioner did not make this argument in the Petition and, instead, raised it for the first time during oral argument; thus, it will not be considered. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Unless it chose to exercise its waiver authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b), the Board was obligated to dismiss Dell’s untimely argument given that the untimely argument in this case was raised for the first time during oral argument.”). Even if we were to consider this new argument, it would not be persuasive. As Patent Owner observes (PO Resp. 20), any processing performed by peripheral device 32 in paragraph 321 is on data received from the processing device and destined for the base station via the network, rather than data flowing in the direction of the first processed video data of claim 1.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,966,347 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,966,347
• Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,023,203
• Tennant Company v. Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Longitude Licensing Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2025 · IPR2023-01230 · APJ Richard M Lebovitz · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–18 not unpatentable over Zhang and Javanifard or Javanifard alone, and claims 9 and 18 not unpatentable over either combination with Kang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “III. BURDEN In an inter partes review, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to prove “unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2024). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior art would have rendered the Challenged Claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). IV. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said (2007). The obviousness inquiry requires an analysis of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements,” but “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “(Nov. 2019), 73 available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“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.”). Newly cited Exhibits 1026 and 1030 are not identified by Petitioner as responsive to Patent Owner’s Response. Rather, the new evidence cited by Petitioner is improperly being used to supply evidentiary support for an argument made in the Petition that lacked such support. A reply cannot be used to introduce new evidence to fill gaps in the Petition or bolster arguments that were inadequately supported in the Petition. The introduction of such evidence constitutes an improper attempt to remedy deficiencies in the Petition, which should have initially contained necessary evidence and arguments to support Ground 1. Accordingly, we find that the introduction of Exhibits 1026 and 1030 as evidence for Ground 1 is impermissible.” slip op. at 51

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of” slip op. at 9

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

    “4. Reasons to combine The principal dispute in this inter partes review is whether Petitioner established a reason to combine Zhang and Javanifard. Primarily, the Petition pointed to disadvantages in the “prior art” identified by Javanifard, motivation to apply Javanifard to Zhang’s fixed stage circuit. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–96). Specifically, the Petition identifies the following reasons as motivation to combine Zhang and Javanifard (citing Ex. 1006, 1:48–53; 1:66–2.2): 1. “‘accommodate different output levels for a given charge pump power supply input level.’” 2. “‘accommodate a given output level for different charge pump power supply input levels.’” 3. “provide flexibility for design needs (e.g., power saving mode, and” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,207,701 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,207,701
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2024 · IPR2022-00279 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 were not shown unpatentable over either Kovatch and Burrows or Wise and Burrows because the combinations did not teach the claimed polling and rank-decrease limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Lipoff, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing,” and that “[m]ore education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” 5 The complete record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. same proposal. PO Resp. 1. On the complete record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art and adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “From this description in Burrows, it is clear that index 70 has no sense of ranking, and that Burrows’ system overall has no sense of ranking prior to a query; thus, adding or deleting a webpage from the index does not change a ranking that does not yet exist. It is also clear that, if a page is flagged as deleted, it will be ignored by the query module when the query module queries the index and ranks the identified qualified pages. Id. at 15:12–16, 15:21–22. The webpage’s rank is not decreased, as the webpage is never ranked in the first place. As Mr. Occhiogrosso testifies: web page. A “polled web site” page cannot be ranked in the Burrows system because the Burrows ranking is performed only after a user query is performed. Only at that time can the Burrows system provide a ranked list (of qualified webpages) for presentation to the user. As Burrows discloses, the Automated Web Browser is robotic in nature and not associated with the queries of users. Ex. 2009 ¶ 181. Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony on this point is consistent with Burrows’ description, credible, and entitled to substantial weight. We have considered Mr. Lipoff’s testimony that a skilled artisan “would have understood that combining Burrows’s polling mechanism receiving no response into Kovatch would decrease the entries’ ranking or placement in Kovatch’s destination tree in order to further limit the pages that may not be of interest to the user.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 172 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:38–46). That testimony, however, is conclusory and lacks persuasive reasoning. Moreover, the passage in Burrows to which it cites (Ex. 1006, 1:38–46) does not teach or suggest decreasing the ranking of webpages. Thus, Mr. Lipoff’s testimony on this point lacks credibility and is entitled to little weight. Upon consideration of the complete record, we are not persuaded that Kovatch and Burrows teach claim limitations 1H and 2H.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In the Reply, Petitioner argues that “the type of database record that Burrows polls and ranks makes no difference for this teaching; processing costs and cycles, equating to processing time, are a potential issue any time computer processing occurs.” Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1061 ¶ 24). Mr. Lipoff repeats this statement in his testimony without identifying the basis for it, rendering that testimony of little value. Ex. 1061 ¶ 24. In any case, it appears that Petitioner and Mr. Lippoff are arguing that a general notion of processing cost any time computer processing occurs would lead a skilled artisan to decrease a webpage’s rank based on response time. This is a new argument, not presented in the Petition, and is therefore forfeited and will not be considered. In any case, Petitioner has not supported this new argument with persuasive evidence.” slip op. at 31

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “In sum, for several reasons, Petitioner has not shown that Kovatch and Burrows teach claim limitations 1H–1J and 2H–2J and, therefore, Petitioner has not shown that Kovatch and Burrows teach each limitation of claims 1 and 2. 4. Conclusion of Nonobviousness As explained above, Petitioner has failed to show that the combination of Kovatch and Burrows teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 2. Upon consideration of all the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 2 would have been obvious over Kovatch and Burrows.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 6,721,705 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,721,705
• Sony Group Corp. (Japan) / Sony Corp. Of America et al. v. MZ Audio Sciences, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 8, 2024 · IPR2022-01544 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish sufficient reasons to combine the references in any of the three obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field with coursework in signal processing, plus two years of academic and/or industry experience in signal processing or a related field. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 2. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art, other references of record, and the ’961 patent specification.” slip op. at 7

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

    “district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, claim terms have their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Petitioner relies on the plain and ordinary meaning and contends that it is unnecessary to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 8 (citing 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b)). Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that, for purposes of this Response only, all terms of the ᾽961 patent have their plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 23. As Petitioner contends, it is not necessary Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe 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 7

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

    “Dr. Scordilis. Based on the record, Petitioner fails to provide a sufficient reason to arrive at the claimed invention and satisfy the burden of showing obviousness. As Patent Owner essentially argues, Cabot (and all references relied upon by Petitioner and Dr. Scordilis) do not pertain to “quantizing a phase difference of the at least one overtone relative to the fundamental tone to embed at least one bit of the data to be embedded” as step 1C-2 requires. See PO Resp. 32–33. Petitioner also relies on Kudumakis to modify Srinivasan in asserting that step 1C-2 would have been obvious, but Petitioner’s reliance on Kudumakis is also faulty as explained below. See Pet. 22–27 (relying on Ex. 1006 (Cabot), Ex. 1007 (Kudumakis); Ex. 1028 (Risset), Ex. 1031 (Lipshitz), Ex. 1055 (“Cox-SSSW”); Ex. 1020 (“Cox- 1995” ); Ex. 1021 (“Wu”)). articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a sufficient reason to modify Srinivasan’s frequencies to embed a quantized phase difference between a fundamental and its harmonic into the harmonic as step 1C-2 requires. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988 (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“teachings of references can be combined only if there is some suggestion or incentive to do so”) (quoting ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). As noted above, Dr. Scordilis states that Cabot merely “opens the venue for exploration” for an artisan of ordinary skill to “try to . . . explore” watermarks. Ex. 2011, 75:16–22. Dr. Scordolis’s testimony relates to an “obvious to try” rationale, but neither Dr. Scordilis’s testimony, nor Petitioner’s showing, satisfies the conditions to support that rationale. In particular, Dr. Scordilis does not testify, and Petitioner does not show, that the technique of embedding phase difference codes into a harmonic relative to its fundamental was one of “a finite number of identified, predictable solutions” and a “known option[]” for hiding data. Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 402 (indicating that under an “obvious to try” rationale, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “The record supports Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr Scordilis’s testimony. Dr. Scordilis does not rely on any references that “have a frequencies specifically.” See Ex. 2011, 90:4–8 (testifying such references are “[n]ot in [his] report”). Moreover, Dr. Scordilis testifies that “[t]he value . . . of Cabot’s work is that he points to the fact that even in this very controlled experiment, although phase is detectable in an A/B type of setup under many, many repetitions, it really opens the venue for exploration that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would try to capitalize and explore further to develop a watermark.” Id. at 75:16–22 (emphasis added). In summary, Dr. Scordilis testifies that no references (including Cabot) cited in his declaration discuss phase encoding of a harmonic phase relative to a fundamental phase for watermarking, and Cabot merely opens the door so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “try to . . . explore further to develop a watermark” using harmonic phase coding data. Id.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,289,961 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,289,961
• Ebates Performance Marketing, Inc. D/B/A Rakuten Rewards v. International Business Machines Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00438 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14–28 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish that the asserted combination taught interactive execution of the ordering and annotation function.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “annotation function . . . for comparing the user’s ‘user profile’ to the results obtained in the initial search.” Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 111–112, 116–117). Petitioner then concludes that, “[t]hus, Uchiyama discloses limitation [14d-2].” Id. at 41 (brackets in original) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157– 160). Petitioner also asserts that: At a minimum, it was obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to have Uchiyama’s system compare a user’s profile to the returned search results “interactively at the time of each user query” so as to achieve Uchiyama’s goal of returning “more meaningful” search results as “the database grows” and “the search results for the same query improve over time.” (Ex-1005 at ¶0026; Ex-1003-Crovella at ¶162.) Hence, Uchiyama also renders obvious limitation [14d-2]. Id. at 41–42 (brackets in original). However, Petitioner does not elaborate on or explain the basis for this conclusory assertion of obviousness. Id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 162 (Dr. Crovella stating the same). Although Petitioner’s analysis of limitation 14d-2 addresses the timing of the execution of the ordering and annotation function (the recited “at the time of each user query”), the analysis does not contain any form of the claim term “interactively,” other than when quoting the claim language. See Pet. 39–42. Thus, the Petitioner does not clearly and persuasively explain how “interactively” is disclosed or taught by Uchiyama.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, plus at least one year of experience in the design and/or implementation of computerized information retrieval technology,” and that “[a]dditional education in the field of computer science may serve as a substitute for experience in the field.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, [Patent Owner] adopts Petitioner’s 4 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 30–35). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “wherein the ordering and annotation function is executed interactively at the time of each user query” contains two requirements: 1) how the function is executed (“interactively”) and when the function is executed (“at the time of each user query”). Petitioner, in effect, reads out of the claim the “interactively” requirement. Petitioner offers no persuasive reason as to why that is correct. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.”). Petitioner, for its proposed claim construction of a single requirement, primarily relies on the Specification’s statement that “the ordering and Annotation step 345 is executed interactively, e.g., at the time of every user query.” Ex. 1001, 8:10–12; see Pet. Reply 12–13 (citing the same for the proposition that “[t]he ’676 patent specification also ties the terms together”); Tr. 16:3–12 (“it’s clear the specification is saying that interactively means at the time of every user query”). Petitioner’s reliance on this statement is misplaced. First, Petitioner agrees that the plain and ordinary meaning of “interactively” means “some sort of interaction with the system,” that the inventor did not utilize its own lexicography to redefine the term “interactively,” and that the Specification does not evidence a disavowal of claim scope. See Tr. 19:4–20. Consistent with that, Petitioner acknowledges that the quoted part of the Specification merely is an example, and is not defining “interactively” as limited to that example. See id. at 19:19–25. Second, Petitioner misreads the Specification as indicating that “at the time of every user query” is an example of “interactively.” See, e.g., id. at 21:25–22:1 (“the way I read this is at the time of every user query is modifying what interactively means”). Rather, the better reading of the Specification’s phrase “executed interactively, e.g., at the time of every user query” is that “at the time of every user query” (as opposed to some other time) is an example of when the function may be interactively executed, not that the two phrases on either side of the “e.g.” are synonymous. slip op. at 21

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

    “annotation function . . . for comparing the user’s ‘user profile’ to the results obtained in the initial search.” Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 111–112, 116–117). Petitioner then concludes that, “[t]hus, Uchiyama discloses limitation [14d-2].” Id. at 41 (brackets in original) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157– 160). Petitioner also asserts that: At a minimum, it was obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to have Uchiyama’s system compare a user’s profile to the returned search results “interactively at the time of each user query” so as to achieve Uchiyama’s goal of returning “more meaningful” search results as “the database grows” and “the search results for the same query improve over time.” (Ex-1005 at ¶0026; Ex-1003-Crovella at ¶162.) Hence, Uchiyama also renders obvious limitation [14d-2]. Id. at 41–42 (brackets in original). However, Petitioner does not elaborate on or explain the basis for this conclusory assertion of obviousness. Id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 162 (Dr. Crovella stating the same). Although Petitioner’s analysis of limitation 14d-2 addresses the timing of the execution of the ordering and annotation function (the recited “at the time of each user query”), the analysis does not contain any form of the claim term “interactively,” other than when quoting the claim language. See Pet. 39–42. Thus, the Petitioner does not clearly and persuasively explain how “interactively” is disclosed or taught by Uchiyama.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 6,785,676 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,785,676
• Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,744,708
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Smart Path Connections, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2023 · IPR2021-01356 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to account for required claim limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner took no position with respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In the Decision to Institute, we adopted Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 11. Post institution, Patent Owner does not dispute our adopted level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s assertion is supported by the testimony of Dr. Lavian. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91–100. Petitioner’s assertion also appears consistent with 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). Accordingly, in the absence of a contrary contention by Patent Owner, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as stated in two alternatives noted above. C.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Because the above-quoted limitations of claims 1 and 12 plainly require that only a single copy of each data packet be forwarded to the output ports forming a subset (which according to limitations [1.1] and [12.1] forms a LAG), any position of Petitioner asserting the contrary must be contained in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3) (“the petition must set forth . . . [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.”). If not, Patent Owner is deprived of an adequate opportunity to respond, for example, by relying on expert testimony in a declaration to support its Response. Petitioner’s articulated claim construction position regarding forwarding only a single copy is belated, and no explanation has been provided to justify omission of this claim construction position in the § 42.204(b)(3). Thus, the argument is not entitled to consideration. Even if we do consider Petitioner’s belated claim construction position, it is nonetheless without merit and we are unpersuaded. Petitioner’s contention is based on the doctrine of claim differentiation, which disfavors reading a limitation expressly stated in a dependent claim into a claim from which it depends. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Specifically, the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation raises a presumption that the limitation in question is not found in the independent claim. Id. Here, dependent claims 3 and 14 respectively narrow independent” slip op. at 13

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

    “For several reasons, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that Borgione forwards only a single copy of a packet via the output ports of Borgione’s LAG as identified by Petitioner. Nowhere in the above-cited portions of Borgione is an indication that no other copy or replicated packet will be forwarded via the output ports of Borgione’s LAG. The above-cited description discusses one forwarding instance but does not represent that there is no other forwarding of a copied or replicated packet. To the contrary, the cited text indicates that other copies or replicated versions would still be forwarded via the output ports of the same LAG. Borgione describes that upon receipt of a packet with a multicast destination address, i.e., a multicast packet, a linking node such as node 110 identifies the network nodes subscribing to the multicast group and replicates the packet. Ex, 1006, 6:14–17. Borgione further states: “The replicated multicast packets can then be forwarded to the identified network nodes [such as node 120].” Id. at 6:17–18. With regard to distributing forwarded copies to balance the traffic load within the LAG, Petitioner cites to the following disclosure of Borgione:” slip op. at 29

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

    “First, the articulated motivation to combine is overly general and is disconnected with the circumstances and requirements of Devi. Mazzola discloses an address-translation mechanism using table look-up, as discussed above in Section II.D.3. It makes no mention of and is not concerned with aggregated links, sending a packet to just one port in an aggregated link, or load distribution among the ports in an aggregated link. It makes no distinction between one port and a plurality of ports, as it discloses that the index value retrieved from a table may be associated with either one port or a plurality of ports. Ex. 1007, 9:28–31 (“In response, the LTL translates the received index to a signal that selects a port or a group of ports for receiving the data frame.”). Although Mazzola describes that each port is associated with a unique index value and a VLAN “color” identifier (Ex. 1007, 3:12– 14), Mazzola also describes that “[t]he destination of any frame may be one or more ports” (id. at 6:16–17) and that a port can be a multicast port including a group of ports (id. at 6:20–24). The “efficiency” Mazzola mentions appears to be using a look-up table for address conversion versus not using a look-up table, and has little, if anything, to do with associating an FMID with a port versus associating an FMID with a group of ports or a LAG. Further, with Devi’s disclosure of sending only one packet to a LAG and load balancing among the ports in a LAG (limitation [1.2]), it is uncertain whether table look-up as described in Mazzola would even work in that environment. Petitioner does not address entries have to be revised. The statement of increased efficiency is speculative in the context of Devi. Second, Petitioner has over-simplified the issue with limitation [1.3] and has not adequately explained how Mazzola’s address-translation mechanism would be incorporated into Devi without affecting those portions of Devi relied on by Petitioner to account for limitation [1.2]. It is not adequately explained how Devi would be modified to incorporate teachings from Mazzola. Petitioner does not adequately address whether the proposed combination would impact Devi’s components and functionality that are also relied on by Petitioner. It is unclear why the purported combination would have been successful.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 7,697,525 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,697,525
• Intel Corporation v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00370 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 49–54 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish a motivation to combine Menezes and Brands-Chaum as proposed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The differences between these two definitions are minor. The main distinction we see is that Patent Owner views a POSA as having specific experience in cryptography and digital rights management, whereas Petitioner views a POSA as having more general experience in software engineering and data communications. Yet there is significant overlap between these definitions because Petitioner also states that a POSA “would have understood the basics of digital communication devices and protocols and how to apply basic cryptographic concepts.” Pet. 19. We are persuaded that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’809 patent. For example, the ’809 patent refers to the problem of “unauthorized copying and pirating” in the context of “digital rights management (DRM) systems and methods.” Ex. 1001, 1:49, 59–61. Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill omits “digital rights management.” We also note that, according to Mr. Williams, Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill is essentially identical to the level of skill adopted by the ITC in the related ITC investigation:” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for the following three terms: “certificate,” “[provide/providing] the secret to the second device,” and “predetermined time.” Pet. 13–14. Patent Owner does not dispute these constructions. See generally PO Resp. We provided a preliminary construction for “predetermined time” at institution, but as the parties do not dispute this term post-institution. Thus, we need not construe any terms now. Dec. 12; see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms 5 Dr. Karp also finds the differences between the parties’ level of skill definitions to be immaterial. In his second declaration, he opined that “[m]y findings in my declaration still hold for a POSA under the ITC’s definition.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 4. that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 9

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

    “The problem with the proposed combination is that the express teachings of Brands-Chaum require timing a rapid single bit, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Menezes’s challenge-response has multiple bits. Patent Owner correctly points out that in Brands- Chaum, “the essential element of a distance-bounding protocol . . . consists of a single-bit challenge and rapid single-bit response.” PO Resp. 21–22 (quoting Ex. 1007, 345) (emphasis added). Not only that, but “each bit of the prover P is to be sent out immediately after receiving a bit from the verifier V.” Id. at 24 (quoting Ex. 1007, 345, 348). Brands-Chaum then repeatedly emphasizes, in each of its five different algorithms, that one device sends a single bit to another device “immediately after he receives” the first bit. Ex. 1007, 347, 348, 349, 350, 356, 357. Brands-Chaum’s repeated italicization of “immediately” underscores the importance to Brands-Chaum of rapidly sending back a single bit right after receiving one. See id.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s argument was a new argument first raised at the hearing. The Reply cites none of the above testimony from Dr. Karp and makes no such argument. Thus, we dismiss this argument as untimely. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Unless it chose to exercise its waiver authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b), the Board was obligated to dismiss Dell’s untimely argument given that the untimely argument in this case was raised for the first time during oral argument.”). But even if we were to consider it, our opinion would not change because Dr. Karp’s testimony contradicts the express disclosure of Brands-Chaum. See Ex. 2019, 166:8–167:9. As we have repeatedly emphasized, Brands- Chaum requires that “[t]he essential element of a distance-bounding protocol . . . consists of a single-bit challenge and rapid single-bit response.” Ex. 1007, 345 (emphasis added). Dr. Karp cites no evidence for his testimony that in a less harsh environment, multiple bits could be used in place of Brands-Chaum’s single bit. This testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,436,809 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,436,809

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.