• Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00819 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan; claim 20 was not shown unpatentable because the references did not teach its required comparison of desired and interferer signal strengths.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. At the institution stage, we did not see a material difference in the proposals given that both parties also indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, and thus adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 9. We requested that the parties address during trial if either believed that the choice of one proposal over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis. Id. Neither party has done so. Accordingly, because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision was incorrect, and because neither party has challenged our finding, we maintain our adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Here, as in the Director’s example, Petitioner advanced a narrower construction of the dynamic limitations before the district court, which the district court declined to adopt. Pet. 9; Ex. 2015; Ex. 2025, 31–47. Instead, the district court adopted a “plain-and-ordinary meaning” construction, which Patent Owner proposed. PO Resp. 38; PO Sur-reply 10 n.2; Ex. 2015; Ex. 2025, 31–47. In the Petition, Petitioner proposed applying the plain and ordinary meaning construction that had already been preliminarily adopted by the district court. Compare Pet. (filed May 1, 2024) with Ex. 2015 (preliminarily adopting plain and ordinary meaning construction on March 25, 2024). Applying Revvo, we find that Petitioner had a sufficient reason for advancing the broader, court-adopted construction in this IPR. Thus, we give the dynamic limitation its plain-and-ordinary meaning, which is “adjusting during operation based—at least in part—on information gained during operation.”” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we stated that we “will give the term ‘signal path’ its ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ and not limit it only to analog components, as the district court found and the parties agree.” Inst. Dec. 11. Given that the parties continue to agree on this point, we see no need to depart from the construction we adopted in our Institution Decision. Moreover, applying Revvo, we find that Petitioner had a sufficient reason for advancing the broader, court-adopted construction in this IPR for the same reasons as discussed above. In this proceeding, the dispute between the parties concerns the application of this and the surrounding claim language (i.e., “in the receiver signal path,” “in the signal path”) to the disclosures in Behbahani. See PO Resp. 43–45. Therefore, we will provide further discussion in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding Behbahani below. However, we agree with Patent Owner’s plain reading of the claim language to the extent it requires adjusting an impedance and/or bias current of a circuit while it is in the signal path. See Id. at 50–51.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Patent Owner’s arguments generally fail to address why Behbahani’s Variable Bandpass Filter Block does not teach the recited “plurality of circuits [comprising/including] . . . a filter,” and instead focus on why the low-pass and high-pass filter circuits do not teach the limitation, which is not Petitioner’s position. As stated above, we agree with Patent Owner’s plain reading of the claim language – i.e., that it “requires adjusting the bias, in or of a circuit.” See PO Resp. 49. However, Patent Owner’s reading of the claim does not persuasively address why the Variable Bandpass Filter Block does not teach the recited “circuit.” We have reviewed Dr. Larson’s cited testimony and disagree with Patent Owner that he provided “a well-supported opinion . . . as to why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not understand the entire bandpass box to be a single ‘circuit,’ or to reflect variation in ‘an impedance’ or ‘a bias’ in the claims.” Sur-reply 4 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 46–48, 71, 74–83). Dr. Larson testifies that the ’330 patent (which has the same specification as the ’164 patent) “teach[es] these adjustments [that dynamically change operating parameters] as changes effected in a single circuit block.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 46 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 8A, 9A, 8:20–25, 8:36–39, 9:36–59, 10:1–18 (emphasis added)). Dr. Larson does not provide further explanation as to what he means by a “single circuit block,” but relies on Figures 8A and 9A, which show a “function block,” and other disclosures referring to a “function block.” See id. There is no dispute that the recited “circuit” in the receiver signal path is referring to these “function blocks.” See Tr. 22:20–23:4. The ’164 patent states that Figure 8A, which includes function block 820, is “an embodiment of the present invention” 8:28–30. Similarly, Figure 9A, which includes function block 920, “illustrate[s] one of the possible power saving techniques.” Id. at 3:41–42. The ’164 patent describes that “[f]unctional block 820 . . . may be a filter, mixer, amplifier, or other circuit or circuits in a wireless transceiver or other electronic circuits or system.” Id. at 8:30–33 (emphasis added). Based on these disclosures, we are not convinced that Function Block 820 or 920 cannot include multiple filters in a Variable Bandpass Filter Block, or that Behbahani’s Variable Bandpass Filter Block does not teach the recited “circuit.” Dr. Larson also relies on Figure 6 of the ’164 patent to conclude that” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 11,564,164 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,564,164
• DISH Network LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00373 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1, 4–8, and 10–16 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 2, 3, 9, and 17 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “The Director then issued an Order, Paper 47 (“Director’s Order” or “Dir. Ord.”) granting Director Review, vacating-in-part the Final Written Decision, and remanding the case to this Board panel for proceedings consistent with the Order. The Director vacated-in-part the Final Written Decision because it did not sufficiently address Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to claim 17 (and similar claims 2 and 9). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision on Remand from Director Review is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Having reviewed the complete trial record, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged claims are unpatentable except for claims 2, 3, 9, and 17.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “2. Analogous Art – DSL-Book A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the” slip op. at 75

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “4. Motivation to Combine Amit and Jacobsen Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have modified “Amit’s” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,594,249 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,594,249
• Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01231 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable under §103; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations do not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25

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

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251
• Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01262 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11

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

    “attempts to extrapolate Mahajan’s specific teachings and specific architecture into a general principle such that specific commands are converted to universal commands and then universal commands are converted to specific commands regardless of the location of the process within a distributed system. See Tr. 14:5–11. Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s extrapolation arguments are unsupported by Mahajan. We understand Petitioner argues that Mahajan’s “distributed computing environments” would have rendered it obvious to alter the location where command conversions occur. Pet. 41; Reply 10–11, 14. Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251
• Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00322 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations do not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 37–70 are unpatentable: claims 37–41, 47, 50–56, 58–59, 60–62, 64–65, and 70 as anticipated by Alden; the remaining challenged claims as obvious over Alden and the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). 3 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/70538 A2 (Exhibit 1010). 4 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/01038 (Exhibit 1006). 5 U.S. Patent No. 4,970,628 (Exhibit 1007). 6 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158 (Exhibit 1008). 7 U.S Patent No. 6,049,749 (Exhibit 1009). 8 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 02/04247 A1 (Exhibit 1011). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (PO Resp. 4), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claim Construction We construe claims using the standard that would be applied in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), giving terms their ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and prosecution history. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The Petition asserts that all claim terms should be given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” See Pet. 8. Patent Owner also proposes that the claim terms be given their ordinary meaning, and identifies the “ordinary meaning” for the terms “identify,” “turn,” and “curve,” which we discuss in our analysis below. We otherwise find that that no express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01353 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, supported by Dr. Staniford’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and four years of industry experience,” and “would have had a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23, 25). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision” slip op. at 7

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

    “We largely agree with Patent Owner that there is no explicit claim- construction dispute. We address Patent Owner’s issues of what ordinarily skilled artisans would have considered in creating and implementing packetfiltering rules in the discussion below. The preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption is one aspect that those with a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks would have considered. Nonetheless, overall, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “configured to prevent an exfiltration operation,” does not require preventing all exfiltrations from occurring, nor allowing all non-exfiltration traffic, and that we need not consider the preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption in the context of that claim construction. We determine that no claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,567,343
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00328 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 26–28, 30–36, 65–68, and 70 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 29 and 69 were not shown unpatentable because the grounds did not establish sensed fog or snow.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, except that we omitted the qualifier “at least” and set the level of experience at two years. See Inst. Dec. 8. In its Response, Patent Owner stated that it “does not dispute the Board’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 3. We accordingly maintain the level of ordinary skill in the art we adopted in the Institution Decision. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “At institution, we interpreted the term “light source” as the Specification defines it: “any system that is capable of receiving an electrical signal and producing light in response to the signal.” Inst. Dec. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:7–10 (“As used herein, the term ‘light source’, LED or ‘solid state light source’ means any system that is capable of receiving an electrical signal and producing light in response to the signal.”)). Patent Owner agrees with that construction. See PO Resp. 6. However, the reason we interpreted “light source” in the institution decision was that there was a question about whether the individual “microbeams” described in the Beam reference were “light sources.” See Inst. Dec. 11. Because, as explained below, we do not reach the Beam grounds, we need not construe “light source” in this final decision. We further find that that no other express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We addressed this issue at institution, explaining that “we understand the asserted combinations” and that “[a]ssertions that both references disclose a particular claim element do not undermine or overly cloud Petitioner’s asserted combinations.” Inst. Dec. 15. That remains the case. Patent Owner’s attempt to spin some loose language in the Petition into “sixty-one grounds” (PO Resp. 7) is not persuasive, particularly after the institution decision, in which we explained how we viewed the combinations presented by Petitioner. See Inst. Dec. 11–13. The combinations are simply not as multiplicated and complicated as Patent Owner contends, and Patent Owner acknowledged at the hearing that the alleged multiplicity did not prevent it from addressing any issue. See Tr. 37:17–18 (“[Q]: Which of these did you address in your papers? [A]: We address every single one for every single claim.”). Patent Owner also argues that “[the] lack of particularity is compounded by Petitioner’s other two petitions challenging the ’503 Patent – Petitions that similarly implicate massive numbers of sub-grounds and comparably lacking particularity – resulting in Petitioner asserting at least 149 sub-grounds.” PO Resp. 19 (emphasis omitted). We again disagree with Patent Owner’s assessment of the number of “sub-grounds” at issue, and conclude, as we did at institution, that three petitions were justified given the number of asserted claims and differences in claim scope. See Inst. Dec. 15. D.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “a. Motivation to Combine Patent Owner first argues that “Harbers curved substrate alone has not been shown to add anything useful to the combination.” Patent Owner 56. This argument is unpersuasive because the combination does not require a curved substrate and Patent Owner does not address the motivation for the combination identified by Petitioner, which is that Harbers’ illumination schemes would have provided “improved visibility for different functions, thereby increasing safety.” See Pet. 82–84 (citing Ex. 1011, 5:14–26, 6:1–7, 6:27–7:19, 8:10–18, Figs. 1B–2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 450). b. Segmentation and Color Shifting Patent Owner next argues that “without segmentation the motivation to use Harbers hardware alone is lacking” and that “[f]urther, the use of Harbers’ colored array creates a color-shifting problem.” PO Resp. 57. With regard to “segmentation,” Patent Owner cities Section VII.A.2.b of the Response, which argues that “[w]hile the system would have included differently colored LEDs, there still would not be a single component of the combination that would have any idea how to segment the beams as Harbers suggests.” PO Resp. 34. We disagree. The combination contemplates use of Harbers’ illumination scheme, and Harbers explains, in connection with Figure 2, for example, how the light sources are controlled to produce the desired illumination pattern. See Ex. 1011, 7:20–9:6.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00318 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 56–64, 66, 68–72, 74, and 76–87 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 65, 67, 73, and 75 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish the required non-contiguous LED clusters.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “F. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner submits that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 10. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that term. 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)). Some of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments depend on claim scope, and we address those implicit claim-construction arguments below.” slip op. at 7

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

    “claim construction: that a controller must associate a target’s identity with a prior target. But the claim language neither imposes nor supports any such requirement. Claim 72 is illustrative, in that it expressly states that the disputed language regarding “illumination provided to the target” is achieved “by repeating the determination of target location, selection of the 10 We agree with Petitioner that the Petition’s reference to “Beam’s system” is a clear typographical error and that the Petition’s substance and citations refer to Karlsson, not Beam. See Pet. Reply 20. cluster and variance to illumination provided to the target, relative to the laterally adjacent areas, based on the subsequent data.” Ex. 1035, 12:8–11. That supports Petitioner’s view that a system can “maintain a variance of the illumination provided to the target” by iteratively performing the “determine,” “select,” and “vary” steps. Claim 80 does not expressly state that steps are repeated, but instead requires the processor be able to identify “a plurality of positions associated with the target” and “change, responsive to the positions associated with the target, first light associated with” LEDs aimed towards the target as the target moves. Id. at 13:30–40. That language, like claim 72’s, does not impose an additional requirement of correlating a detected target to prior detected targets. Rather, it requires that a given target results in multiple identified positions that produce light changes. Based on our understanding of the claim language, Patent Owner’s assertion that, in Karlsson, “[e]ach subsequent detection of light is performed anew and has no relationship to a prior detection and may or may not correspond to the same target” (PO Resp. 52) does not preclude the claim from reading on Karlsson. As Petitioner has identified, the claim language reads on Karlsson’s system when a particular vehicle results in multiple, subsequent detections at multiple positions. Pet. 74. Although Patent Owner poses an alternative situation in which Karlsson’s system might detect other objects rather than the particular vehicle first detected (see PO Resp. 50–51), that does not undermine Petitioner’s showing because the claims do not require that a system perform only as claimed. That is, even if Karlsson’s system detects and accommodates additional targets, if a single target results in multiple light configurations, the claim language is satisfied. And Patent Owner concedes that Karlsson’s system produces “a” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. 56 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 110 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 156 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 59–61. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17– 110:4. While there may be some tradeoffs involved in using a different camera location than Nakamura discusses, those tradeoffs would be balanced by the benefits that Karlsson discloses from locating a camera with each headlamp. Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented as a lighting change by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have had reason to modify Karlsson’s system with Nakamura’s teachings regarding capturing and using image coordinates as summarized above.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00315 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 24, 26, 28–32, 34, 36–40, 42, and 44–47 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 25, 27, 33, 35, 41, 43, and 48–55 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–46, 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to 3 Beam, U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158, issued Nov. 7, 2000. Ex. 1005, code (45). 4 English translation of Satonaka et al., Japan Patent Publication No. H7-101291, published Apr. 18, 1995. Ex. 1014, 0001, code (43). 5 Kobayashi, U.S. Patent No. 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000. Ex. 1008, code (45). 6 Karlsson, WIPO Patent Publication No. 98/54030, published December 3, 1998. Ex. 1010, code (43). 7 English translation of Nakamura et al., Japan Patent Publication No. H7-65603, published Mar. 10, 1995. Ex. 1013, 0001, code (43). 8 Gotou, U.S. Patent No. 5,588,733, issued Dec. 31, 1996. Ex. 1012, code (45). integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner notes that, during reexamination of the ’551 patent, the Office interpreted “electronic circuitry apparatus for the controlled powering of the LEDs” as a means-plus-function limitation and identified the corresponding structure as “logic control electronics unit 7.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1002, 929–39; Ex. 1001, 25:34–52). Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 9. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that term. 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 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “As to the advantages of Karlsson’s lamp-located sensor, nothing about that arrangement would have changed in the proposed combination. As described, Petitioner proposes using aspects of Nakamura’s processing in combination with Karlsson’s physical system. See Pet. 54–58. Thus, the combination preserves any advantages Karlsson obtains by locating a sensor with each illumination system. As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. Reply 58 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 125 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 168 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 57–59. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17–110:4. It is inapposite that “Nakamura does not contemplate LEDs and therefore does not control light in a similar fashion” as Patent Owner argues (PO Resp. 60), because Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner

    “however, has not presented Mr. Stam’s declaration as a declaration in this case, instead relying on its expert, Dr. Turk, who “reviewed the objective evidence statements in the Stam declaration.” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 215–216). Dr. Turk, however, was not able to recall the meaning of multiple terms he used in his declaration (Ex. 1053, 124:5–135:18) and asserted that he determined that ADB technology falls within the claims by looking at the Stam declaration, without independently verifying statements in the Stam declaration or reviewing the documents upon which those statements were based (id. at 135:19–137:16). Dr. Turk’s declaration addressing secondary considerations is not credible as to the substance of the asserted secondary considerations, and Patent Owner’s asserted secondary considerations are not persuasive for that reason alone. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner has not shown any evidence that is “the direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.” Pet. Reply 25 (quoting Fox Factory, Inc. v. Sram, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal quotations omitted)). In particular, Petitioner asserts that all the elements of the claimed invention were known in the prior art, and thus that Patent Owner cannot show a nexus between any long-felt need or industry praise and the challenged claims. Id. at 25–26. As to independent claims 24 and 32, Patent Owner does not assert any “unique characteristics that are novel and nonobvious over the asserted art.” See PO Resp. 70–71. Patent Owner asserts that claim 40 includes “adapting light emission to provide at least two dark zones with ‘light in-between’” and that the Stam declaration correlates that characteristic with the objective evidence. Id. The Stam declaration addresses claim language reciting illumination “that preserves a first level of illumination illuminating past the other vehicle while preventing glare to a driver of the other vehicle” and asserts that an article discussing that a commercial product’s “[i]ndividually controlled LEDs also provide two or more dark zones with ‘light in-between,’ allowing continuous use of a vehicle’s high-beams to maximize visibility and provide a safer driving experience.” Ex. 2023, 734 (Stam declaration ¶ 117) (quoting Ex. 2023, 182) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not explain and we do not understand the connection between the claim language recited in the declaration and that of claim 40. But even accepting that the reexamination exhibit shows industry praise for a system with claim 40’s feature, Patent Owner has not shown that the feature was novel. As discussed above, we conclude that Karlsson discloses that aspect of claim 40 without modification. See supra at 16 (§ II.B.5). Accordingly, even viewing Patent Owner’s evidence as credible and appropriate, we conclude that it would not establish the required nexus for claim 40. To be clear, Patent Owner’s asserted evidence would not establish nexus for any aspect of the independent claims, because each element is found in the prior art and the only elements for which Petitioner asserts a combination of prior-art teachings—those relating to image coordinates—are not those that Patent Owner relies on for a unique characteristic of the claimed invention. Patent Owner asserts further that industry praise was directed at the “Predictive Curve Illumination feature” recited by dependent claims that require the ability to “accommodate the upcoming road curvature” by adapting the light. PO Resp. 8, 70–71. Patent Owner relies on a report of a new lighting system used by BMW that states, “[t]he benefit of a glare-free function is not only to shadow out other cars but also to provide visibility for upcoming curves and dangerous situations; there is a clear safety gain by illuminating this curve in front of the driver.” Ex. 2023, 727 (quoting Ex. 2023, 177) (emphasis omitted). That statement does not itself establish a nexus to the “Predictive Curve Illumination” claims.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551

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.