- PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00530 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Original claims 1–9 were canceled; the non-contingent motion to add substitute claims 10–18 was denied for lack of written-description support, and claim 18 was also indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“that either the ’303 application or the ’838 provisional contain adequate written description support for the disputed feature of limitation [10.d]. Though the disclosures cited by Patent Owner indicate that a secondary identifier can be used to aid in verification of a UAV, these disclosures also make clear that both first and second identifiers are transmitted by and received from the UAV. See, e.g., Ex. 2002, 4:15–17, 30:24–31:6; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 14, 66. Patent Owner’s reliance on disclosure characterized as transmitting an identifier from a remote computing system “through the UAV” (Reply 2) is not persuasive. The cited disclosures from the ’303 application and ’838 provisional generally disclose that the identifiers transmitted by a UAV can be “generated remotely,” such as by a “remote computing system.” Ex. 2002, 14:23–15:2; Ex. 2003 ¶ 45. But Patent Owner has not identified disclosure indicating that a remote computing system may transmit an identifier to the identification receiver. In the ’303 application and ’838 provisional, only the UAV (which is part of the discrimination system, and thus not “remote”) actually transmits identifiers to the identification receiver. Patent Owner is correct in its assertion that an “aerial system identifier can be generated on-board the aerial system” or “generated remotely . . . at a remote computing system.” Mot. 7 (citing Ex. 2002, 14:23–15:2; Ex. 2003 ¶ 45). But even if a UAV’s identifier was at some time in the past generated by a remote computing system, the subsequent transmission of that identifier from the UAV to the identification receiver would not satisfy the plain language of limitation [10.d]. The claim language “receive … a second identifier from a computing system that is remote to the discrimination system” requires the receipt of a transmission of the second identifier from a remote computing system. This claim language limits the source of the received transmission (i.e., where the particular transmission is “receive[d] … from”). Thus, the relevant issue is from where was the recited second identifier received. The relevant is not where the second identifier was originally generated.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteIndefiniteMixed
“We determine that the disputed language in limitation [10.d] is not indefinite. There is no recitation in proposed substitute claim 10 that the second identifier is transmitted solely from the identifier transmission system. Thus, the alleged irreconcilable contradiction cited by Petitioner is not recited in the claims. Petitioner’s position appears to rest on the fact that the ’303 application and ’838 provisional do not disclose receiving the second identifier from a remote computing system. See Sur-reply 6 (“To manufacture written description support, [Patent Owner] argues the claim encompasses identifiers routed ‘through the UAV.’”). Though we agree that limitation [10.d] lacks adequate written description support, this defect does not render the claim indefinite because the scope of limitation [10.d] is otherwise reasonably certain based on its plain language. See supra § III.C.4.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for patent owner
“In contrast, the ’393 provisional never discloses that the described drone defense system may use the identity of a detected drone to develop a particular countermeasure. The disclosed RTSS certainly uses identity information to determine whether a drone is a threat. And if a threat is identified, the RTSS immediately starts “a series of processes … to determine what rule of engagement will be applied on the intruding drone.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 10. The ’393 provisional discloses that the system may select a particular countermeasure based on (i) the particular zone within a protected area within which a drone is located, (ii) “the behavior of the hostile drone,” or (iii) “other instructions.” Id. ¶¶ 9, 10. But the ’393 provisional never discloses that these “other instructions” may include the identity of the drone. The system disclosed in the ’393 provisional uses the identity of a drone to determine whether to activate the countermeasure system. See id. ¶¶ 16–18. But there is no disclosure in the ’393 provisional that the countermeasure system, once activated, uses the identity of the drone to develop the particular countermeasure to be employed. See generally Ex. 1006. Thus, though the Whitmarsh reference itself contains ample written description support for limitation [19e], the earlier-filed ’393 provisional does not. On this record, and having reviewed the ’393 provisional in its entirety, we determine that the ’393 provisional does not “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of” the subject matter of limitation [19e] of Whitmarsh’s claim 19 “as of the filing date” of the ’393 provisional. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 27
§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,249,199 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00525 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Original claim 21 was canceled; the Board denied substitute claim 22 for new matter and held it obvious under §103 based on six combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“First, Patent Owner has not shown possession of the disputed feature of a “radio communication module [that] is configured to utilize a secure identifier, the secure identifier comprising a specified excitation.” In the ’406 application, the term “excitation” is used exclusively to refer to a light beam signal. See Ex. 2015, 7:8–13, 9:8–10, 23:9.2 The ’406 application discloses that an identification box on an aircraft may include both an RF module and a separate light sensor. See Ex. 2015, 7:3–11. But nowhere does the ’406 application describe receiving a light beam (e.g., an excitation) with the RF module of the identification box (as opposed to the light sensor), so as to provide support for proposed substitute claim 22’s recitation of a “radio communication module” configured to utilize “a secure identifier . . . comprising a specified excitation.” We disagree with Patent Owner that it suffices that one of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that these disclosures are equally applicable to the RF-only embodiments” (Reply 5). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement . . . that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). On this record, and having reviewed the ’959 Patent, the ’153 provisional, and the ’406 application, we find no evidence in those documents that the named inventor was in possession of the concept of a radio communications module “configured to utilize a secure identifier” where “the secure identifier compris[es] a specified excitation.” Second, setting aside the “radio communication module” in proposed substitute claim 22, Patent Owner also has not shown that the named inventor was in possession of the feature of a “secure identifier comprising a specified excitation.” Patent Owner’s argument that the ’406 application describes a light beam directed to a particular aircraft (see Reply 4–5) is 2 The same is true of the ’153 provisional. See Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 29, 34. unavailing. The fact that the properties of a particular light beam indicate that the light beam is intended for a particular aircraft does not demonstrate that the light beam is a “secure identifier,” as we have construed that term. Patent Owner has not identified any disclosure in the ’406 application of a “secure identifier” comprising a light beam, let alone that such light beam can be utilized by a “radio communication module.” The only references to “secure” identifiers in the ’406 application describe radio frequency signals. See Ex. 2015, 2:4–6, 15:21–17:12.3 Having reviewed the ’959 Patent, the ’153 provisional, and the ’406 application, we find no evidence in those documents that the named inventor was in possession of the concept of a “secure identifier comprising a specified excitation.”” slip op. at 15
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“not impermissibly broaden the scope of the claims of the ’959 Patent. As Patent Owner suggests, there were no limitations in original claim 21 on the type of radio signal the radio communication module could receive, and so it follows that proposed substitute claim 22 does not now encompass receiving a broader set of radio signals. We see no basis for Petitioner’s argument that the past tense verb “received” limited original claim 21 to “signals of a compatible ‘type’ and ‘range.’” Opp. 7. Moreover, the claim language (with the proposed deletion shown double brackets) provides that “the radio communication module is configured to receive a [[received]] radio signal.” Any radio signal that the radio communications module receives would necessarily be a “received” radio signal. Thus, deleting the redundant word “received” does not enlarge the scope of this claim limitation. We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s suggestion that removing the term “received” broadens original claim 21 by deleting a requirement that the radio signal have already been previously received by the claimed device. See Sur-reply 9. Original claim 21 simply recited, using redundant language, that “the radio communication module is configured to receive a received radio signal.” Ex. 1001, 18:5–7. The most natural reading of this language is that the phrase “received radio signal” is just a description of a radio signal that is received by the recited radio communications module. Petitioner has cited no persuasive evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have counterintuitively interpreted this language to impose an additional requirement that the “received radio signal” must have been received twice—a first time by some other component of the device, and a second time by the recited radio communication module. Accordingly, we determine that the proposed amendment does not improperly broaden claim scope.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“572 U.S. 898 (2014). See Memorandum: Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021).4 Under Nautilus, a claim is indefinite if fails to “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” 572 U.S. at 910. We agree with Patent Owner that neither of the identified terms are indefinite. Regarding the term “low-altitude aircraft,” we determine the Specification provides a sufficient basis for understanding the scope and meaning of this term with reasonable certainty. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit has explained that, when a term of degree is recited in a claim, it is necessary “to determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” See Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.”). Here, the Specification describes the related art as including “small UASs (e.g., aircrafts up to 25 pounds flying up to 500 ft of the low altitude airspace).” Ex. 1001, 1:50–52. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the Specification that the cited disclosure provides an objective standard for determining the scope of a low-altitude aircraft as one that is designed to fly up to a maximum altitude of about 500 feet.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the following qualifications: [E]ither (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Aerospace engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the aerospace, avionics, telecommunications, or electronic device manufacturing industry, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in any of the above industries. Paper 13, 5 (citing Pet. 21). Patent Owner has not disputed this formulation; thus, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Paper 13, 10–11 n. 8.” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,713,959 - Qualcomm Incorporated v. Unm Rainforest InnovationsAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 30, 2025 · IPR2021-00375 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Remand
Proposed substitute claims 44–47, 49, and 50 are unpatentable as obvious under collateral estoppel; the Board denied Patent Owner’s motion to amend.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“the Acting Director of the USPTO (Paper 81, “Acting Director’s Order”) and after a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) in ZyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, 107 F.4th 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Federal Circuit Decision”) regarding the Board’s original Final Written Decision (Paper 68, “Final Written Decision” or “Final Dec.”) in this proceeding. In particular, the court remanded to the Board to determine if proposed substitute claims 44–47, 49, and 50 are unpatentable as obvious under collateral estoppel based on the court’s holding that claims 1–4 and 6–8 are unpatentable as obvious. ZyXEL, 107 F.4th at 1371, 1384.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“proposed substitute claim 44 presents the same issues as those litigated before the Federal Circuit: whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first key element and whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the second key element.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Final Written Decision, and the Federal Circuit Decision, as well as the postremand briefing, we determine that the application of collateral estoppel to proposed substitute claim 44 is appropriate. It is also appropriate to apply collateral estoppel to substitute claims 45–47, 49, and 50. This is because proposed substitute claims 45–47, 49, and 50 depend from proposed substitute claim 44 and recite identical limitations to dependent claims 2–4, 6, and 7. Therefore, the resolution of the question of obviousness of the subject matter of proposed substitute claims 45–47, 49, and 50 necessarily presents the same issues of whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first key element and whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the second key element.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 8,265,096 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,265,096 - Qualcomm Incorporated v. Network System Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00343 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Rădulescu2004 and OCP; the Board did not reach the Weber-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (2006). “[T]he use of the word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part); Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[This] presumption may be rebutted if the properly construed claim limitation itself recites sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1001, 4:46–50. This passage indicates that the interconnect can be a network on a chip and the network on a chip can include wires and buses. That does not necessarily mean that the interconnect can be just wires or buses; rather, it discloses that the interconnect can include wires and buses. In context, the disclosure regarding wires and buses does not support construing the corresponding structure broadly enough to encompass just wires and buses. The networks that constitute the corresponding structure, however, could include networks with wires and buses. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner that the corresponding structure for the interconnect means should not include a mere bus, switch, and point-to-point wire and instead find that the corresponding structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 is a network, which the ’052 patent describes as a multi-hop interconnection between modules separated by one or more network nodes. See Ex. 1001, 2:33–37. Because this structure corresponds to the construction of “interconnect means” proposed by Patent Owner and adopted by the district courts in the TI and Qualcomm litigations (see supra Section III.C.3.b), and we do not rely in our analysis below on a recourse to “equivalents thereto” as permitted by § 112 ¶ 6, we note that our ultimate conclusions on the unpatentability of the challenged claims would be the same if § 112 ¶ 6 did not apply. iii. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we construe “interconnect means” to cover the structure described in the Specification corresponding to the specified functions of “coupling said plurality of processing modules (M, S)” in the context of claim 6 and “coupling said plurality of processing modules (M, S)” and “enabling a connection-based communication having a set of connection properties” in the context of claims 1 and 7—i.e., a “multi-hop interconnection between modules separated by one or more network nodes”—and equivalents thereof.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been 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 of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,052 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,594,052 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00262 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Haley and Lai render the claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDenied
“Patent Owner argues that we should discretionarily deny the Petition based on alleged deficiencies in the Petition. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “even if arguments as to a few claims might have been properly presented in the Petition, a decision to institute here would require the Board to address—for the first time and with no Petitioner input—critical claim construction issues affecting nearly every claim” in contravention of the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Prelim. Resp. 34–35. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has violated 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), or that critical and unresolved claim interpretation issues justifying discretionarily denying the Petition exist. We, therefore, decline to deny institution on this basis.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The parties’ briefs do not propose a specific definition of a level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally, Pet., Prelim. Resp. Dr. Vallee, however, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’954 patent: would have either (i) a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering with at least two years of experience in power nailer design; (ii) a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering with at least five years of experience in powered nailer design; or (iii) ten (or more) years of experience in powered nailer design. This experience in powered nailer design would include mechanical design, tool design, manufacturing, mechanics of materials, stress analysis, ergonomics, and human factors. Ex. 1003, ¶ 49. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt and apply Dr. Vallee’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther
“1. Lifter The Petition contends that the “lifter” limitation is a means-plus- function limitation, Pet. 7, which Patent Owner does not dispute, Prelim. Resp. 15–26. Patent Owner argues, however, that Petitioner has “fail[ed] to identify any structure in the ’007 [sic, ’954] Patent to perform the claimed function.” Prelim. Resp. 15. We disagree. Petitioner identifies the structures in the Specification corresponding to the “lifter” as follows: The “lifter member” of the ’954 patent includes a rotatable cam lifter 100 (yellow, below left), with pin 104, 106, and 108 (green) on its face surface that engage protrusions 92 (blue) on the driver member 90 (orange). ’954 patent, 9:25–41, 16:32–46, Fig. 12. The ’954 patent also discloses two-pin variants: lifter members 465 and 480 in Figs. 31, 33. ’954 patent, 32:12–27, 32:45–60. Pet. 15. This identification of corresponding structure is sufficient to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). We also note that at this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner has correctly identified the corresponding structure. The parties may further address the proper interpretation of “lifter” at trial.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,478,954 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00261 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Haley anticipates claims 1, 7, 8, 17, and 20 and Haley with Lai renders the remaining claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Patent Owner argues that we should discretionarily deny the Petition based on alleged deficiencies in the Petition. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “even if arguments as to a few claims might have been properly presented in the Petition, a decision to institute here would require the Board to address—for the first time and with no Petitioner input—critical claim construction issues affecting nearly every claim” in contravention of the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Prelim. Resp. 33–35. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has violated 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), or that critical and unresolved claim interpretation issues justifying discretionarily denying the Petition exist. We, therefore, decline to deny institution on this basis. E. Claims 1, 7, 8, 17, and 20: Anticipation by Haley” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“1. Lifter The Petition contends that the “lifter” limitation is a means-plus- function limitation, Pet. 7, which Patent Owner does not dispute, Prelim. Resp. 10–14. Patent Owner argues, however, that Petitioner has “fail[ed] to identify any structure in the ’007 Patent to perform the claimed function.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We disagree. Petitioner identifies the structures in the Specification corresponding to the “lifter” as follows: The “lifter” (“lifter member”) of the ’007 patent includes a rotatable cam lifter 100 (yellow below left), with pin 104, 106, and 108 (green) on its face surface that engage protrusions 92 (blue) on the driver member 90 (orange). ’007 patent, 9:36–52, 16:39–53, Fig. 12. The ’007 patent also discloses two-pin variants: lifter members 465 and 480 in Figs. 31, 33. ’007 patent, 32:23–38, 32:56–33:4. Pet. 17. This identification of corresponding structure is sufficient to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). We also note that at this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner has correctly identified the corresponding structure. The parties may further address the proper interpretation of “lifter” at trial.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“gas pressure system” recited in the preamble of independent claims 1 and 17. Prelim. Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner, through its comparison of claims 1 and 17 to Haley, improperly implies that the “gas pressure system” can be “limited to a distinct portion of a power tool.” Id. at 23. Patent Owner contends that such an interpretation is improper because the “gas pressure system” must refer to “the entire system,” because the “structure of the claims themselves . . . include[s] . . . every component of the tool.” Id. We disagree. The “gas pressure system” recited in the preambles of claims 1 and 17 expressly refers to a system that is “for a power tool” and thus does not necessarily refer to “the entire” tool or “every component of the tool.” Ex. 1001, 39:6 (claim 1), 40:51 (claim 17). Neither claim 1 nor claim 17 recites, for example, the lifter or driver, which are required elements of an “entire” tool. Id. at 39:6–22 (claim 1), 40:51–67 (claim 17). The lifter and driver are introduced in dependent claims 2 and 18. Id. at 39:23–30 (claim 2), 41:1–9 (claim 18). Still other necessary components of a tool, e.g., a motor and power source, are introduced in dependent claims 5 and 19. Id. at 39:40–42 (claim 5), 41:10–13 (claim 19). By contrast to claims 1 and 17, independent claims 9 and 14 recite a “portable fastener driving tool” and expressly recite many necessary components of such a tool including the driver, lifter, prime mover, and power source. Id. at 39:54 (claim 9), 40:20 (claim 14). Accordingly, we find that the “gas pressure system” of claims 1 and 17 broadly refers to a portion of a power tool rather than the “entire system” or “every component of the tool.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,034,007 - Intel Corporation / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00301 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review for claims 1–11, 16, and 21 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial, and denied joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“2026. This date is nearly five months prior to the date on which the final written decision would be due if trial were instituted in this proceeding. And, even if we assume Petitioner’s alleged February–March 2026 trial date, this date too is several months prior to the projected final written decision deadline. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding would issue before trial in the district court, unless the trial was delayed or rescheduled for a later time. Thus, we find this factor weighs in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. See ARM Ltd. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, IPR2025-00207, Paper 10 at 2 (May 16, 2025) (Before the Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office) (exercising discretion to deny institution with the same relative timing between district court trial and final written decision deadline).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Institution of inter partes review, however, is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons discussed below, we exercise discretion pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) not to institute inter partes review. Additionally, for the same reasons and because institution was denied in IPR2024-01248, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (“[T]he Director . . . may join as a party . . . any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director . . . determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.”).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,814,071 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00285 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the same claims, grounds, arguments, and evidence had already failed the reasonable-likelihood threshold in the Samsung IPR, and denied joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which states as follows: JOINDER.— If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314. Because joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) is premised on an inter partes review having been instituted, and the Board did not institute review in the Samsung IPR to which Petitioner seeks to join, we deny the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,947,505 - PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00913 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 6–12, 14, and 16–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim in each petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“First, we find no basis for exercising our discretion to deny institution with regard to the Juniper case because that case does not yet have a scheduling order in place, and, as Petitioner points out, the median time to trial in that district is 34.6 months, which puts the trial in approximately July 2026, so there is nothing in the record to indicate that a trial will occur before our deadline for a final written decision in these proceedings. See Fintiv at 5 (“When the patent owner raises an argument for discretionary denial under NHK due to an earlier trial date, the Board’s decisions have balanced [Fintiv] factors [1–6].” (emphasis added)); Pet. 67 (arguing that “the court has neither entered a schedule nor set a trial date”); Prelim. Resp. 18 (acknowledging that “the court has not yet entered a schedule or set a trial date for the Juniper case”). Second, following submission of the papers in these proceedings, the Cisco case was dismissed on December 26, 2024. Ex. 3001. Accordingly, there will be no trial in the Cisco case and thus we are not persuaded that the interests of efficiency and integrity of the system would be best served by invoking our authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Petitioner filed both of its petitions in the instant proceedings on the same day, May 31, 2024, and the prior petition in IPR2024-00506 was filed by a different party previously sued for infringement of the ’394 patent in a different district court case. Therefore, there are no serial petitions, as that term is used in General Plastic, filed in these IPRs. However, “our application of the General Plastic factors is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner. Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors.” Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). Petitioner argues that “no significant relationship exists” between it and Cisco, as they were “accused of infringing the ’394 patent with different products in different court proceedings . . . and have not coordinated regarding the ’394 patent, the separately accused products, or the filing of petitions for IPR.” Pet. 70. Patent Owner provides no evidence of a significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco, but nonetheless argues that factors 1–5 favor discretionary denial anyway, because Petitioner had knowledge of the Cisco petition, citing the Board’s decision in Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550, Paper 8 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2020) (“Ericsson”), for the proposition that Petitioner’s use of the Cisco petition as a roadmap ties the interests of the petitioners together. Prelim. Resp. 26. We are not persuaded by this assertion. First, Ericsson is not a precedential or informative decision and is not binding on us or informative to our analysis. Moreover, in that case there were five prior petitions that covered all of the challenged claims, and the petitioner admitted crafting its petition based on its review of the prior petitions. Ericsson at 3, 11. Petitioner here has not made such a concession, and moreover, Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that Petitioner actually did use the petition in IPR2024-00506 as a roadmap. Under the circumstances, we find no evidence that Petitioner used the prior petition filed by Cisco as a roadmap, particularly when none of the timing associated with the prior petition was within its control. We find no significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco. “[W]here, as here, the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Videndum Prod. Sols., Inc. v. Rotolight Ltd., IPR2023-01218, Paper 12 at 6 (Vidal Apr. 19, 2024). Accordingly, based on the particular facts of these proceedings, including the points addressed above, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petitions on that basis.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Conclusion Regarding Ground 1 Based on the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 1. Petitioner also contends that claim 11, which is an apparatus claim for a network element that otherwise has similar limitations as claim 1, is rendered obvious for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. Pet. 57–61. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s arguments for claim 11 for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 10–16. Based on the current record, we also find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 11. We need not determine at this time whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 17, also challenged in Ground 1. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“sufficient showing that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Hu’s concept of aggregating ports to form a high-capacity port for transmitting multicast streams to the network device disclosed by Blease, and we do not agree that Blease teaches away from incorporating such aggregation. Both Blease and Hu are directed to similar subject matter, processing multicast stream requests, and Hu’s link aggregation addresses the problem of potentially overloading a port when doing so. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (57) (“The network device transmits multicast traffic to the subscriber devices.”); Ex. 1007, claim 17 (“A network device to allocate media streams . . . .”), 1:20–29 (disclosing that, if “insufficient bandwidth [is allocated] to video streams, the quality of service degrades”); see Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“That [two prior art references] address the same problem and that [one of the references] was a known way to address that problem is precisely the reason that there’s a motivation to combine under KSR and our precedent.”). On this record, we are persuaded that applying Hu’s port aggregation teaching to Blease’s router would be the application of a known technique to improve the router to allow it to provide multicast streams that require higher bandwidth with predicable results. Pet. 28; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–21. As pointed out by Petitioner, these two concepts could be combined together in a straightforward manner and applied to streams that require high-capacity ports, a technique already applied elsewhere in Blease to other ports, so a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–94; see Elekta Ltd. v. Zap Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Evidence of reasonable expectation of success, just like evidence of a motivation to combine, ‘may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.’”) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). On this record, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Blease teaches away from using aggregated ports to form a high-capacity link because “Blease’s disclosure is clear that the focus of its multicast techniques is to reduce, not increase, the amount of multicast traffic flowing through network.” Prelim. Resp. 14. The discussion in Blease of minimizing the bandwidth does not relate to restricting the bandwidth required for a particular stream as Patent Owner seems to assert, but rather to eliminating duplicate transmissions of the same multicast stream to be delivered to multiple subscribers. See Ex. 1005, 2:39–42, 4:50–56 (“The multicast transmission techniques described herein may significantly reduce the amount of multicast traffic . . . . For example, regardless of the number of subscriber devices[] connected to the same network switch that request the same multicast stream, [the] network device[] only sends one copy of the multicast stream to the network switch.”). Therefore, aggregating ports to accommodate transmission of a single multicast stream that requires more bandwidth is a different concept that is unrelated to the discussion in Blease about minimizing bandwidth by increasing efficiency.” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,014,394 - PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00989 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 6–12, 14, and 16–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim in each Petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“First, we find no basis for exercising our discretion to deny institution with regard to the Juniper case because that case does not yet have a scheduling order in place, and, as Petitioner points out, the median time to trial in that district is 34.6 months, which puts the trial in approximately July 2026, so there is nothing in the record to indicate that a trial will occur before our deadline for a final written decision in these proceedings. See Fintiv at 5 (“When the patent owner raises an argument for discretionary denial under NHK due to an earlier trial date, the Board’s decisions have balanced [Fintiv] factors [1–6].” (emphasis added)); Pet. 67 (arguing that “the court has neither entered a schedule nor set a trial date”); Prelim. Resp. 18 (acknowledging that “the court has not yet entered a schedule or set a trial date for the Juniper case”). Second, following submission of the papers in these proceedings, the Cisco case was dismissed on December 26, 2024. Ex. 3001. Accordingly, there will be no trial in the Cisco case and thus we are not persuaded that the interests of efficiency and integrity of the system would be best served by invoking our authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“same day, May 31, 2024, and the prior petition in IPR2024-00506 was filed by a different party previously sued for infringement of the ’394 patent in a different district court case. Therefore, there are no serial petitions, as that term is used in General Plastic, filed in these IPRs. However, “our application of the General Plastic factors is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner. Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors.” Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). Petitioner argues that “no significant relationship exists” between it and Cisco, as they were “accused of infringing the ’394 patent with different products in different court proceedings . . . and have not coordinated regarding the ’394 patent, the separately accused products, or the filing of petitions for IPR.” Pet. 70. Patent Owner provides no evidence of a significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco, but nonetheless argues that factors 1–5 favor discretionary denial anyway, because Petitioner had knowledge of the Cisco petition, citing the Board’s decision in Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550, Paper 8 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2020) (“Ericsson”), for the proposition that Petitioner’s use of the Cisco petition as a roadmap ties the interests of the petitioners together. Prelim. Resp. 26. We are not persuaded by this assertion. First, Ericsson is not a precedential or informative decision and is not binding on us or informative to our analysis. Moreover, in that case there were five prior petitions that covered all of the challenged claims, and the petitioner admitted crafting its petition based on its review of the prior petitions. Ericsson at 3, 11. Petitioner here has not made such a concession, and moreover, Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that Petitioner actually did use the petition in IPR2024-00506 as a roadmap. Under the circumstances, we find no evidence that Petitioner used the prior petition filed by Cisco as a roadmap, particularly when none of the timing associated with the prior petition was within its control. We find no significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco. “[W]here, as here, the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Videndum Prod. Sols., Inc. v. Rotolight Ltd., IPR2023-01218, Paper 12 at 6 (Vidal Apr. 19, 2024). Accordingly, based on the particular facts of these proceedings, including the points addressed above, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petitions on that basis.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Conclusion Regarding Ground 1 Based on the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 1. Petitioner also contends that claim 11, which is an apparatus claim for a network element that otherwise has similar limitations as claim 1, is rendered obvious for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. Pet. 57–61. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s arguments for claim 11 for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 10–16. Based on the current record, we also find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 11. We need not determine at this time whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 17, also challenged in Ground 1. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“sufficient showing that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Hu’s concept of aggregating ports to form a high-capacity port for transmitting multicast streams to the network device disclosed by Blease, and we do not agree that Blease teaches away from incorporating such aggregation. Both Blease and Hu are directed to similar subject matter, processing multicast stream requests, and Hu’s link aggregation addresses the problem of potentially overloading a port when doing so. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (57) (“The network device transmits multicast traffic to the subscriber devices.”); Ex. 1007, claim 17 (“A network device to allocate media streams . . . .”), 1:20–29 (disclosing that, if “insufficient bandwidth [is allocated] to video streams, the quality of service degrades”); see Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“That [two prior art references] address the same problem and that [one of the references] was a known way to address that problem is precisely the reason that there’s a motivation to combine under KSR and our precedent.”). On this record, we are persuaded that applying Hu’s port aggregation teaching to Blease’s router would be the application of a known technique to improve the router to allow it to provide multicast streams that require higher bandwidth with predicable results. Pet. 28; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–21. As pointed out by Petitioner, these two concepts could be combined together in a straightforward manner and applied to streams that require high-capacity ports, a technique already applied elsewhere in Blease to other ports, so a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–94; see Elekta Ltd. v. Zap Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Evidence of reasonable expectation of success, just like evidence of a motivation to combine, ‘may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.’”) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,014,394
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.