• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00711 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 11–13, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 29 are unpatentable as obvious over Kelly, Kelly and Paulsen, or Walker and Schneier.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art There is no evidentiary dispute about the level of ordinary skill in the art.7 Based on the testimony of Mr. Crevelt, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering, with at least three years of experience in game development. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–103). Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Id. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted above is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’164 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the record.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner argues that it is not necessary for the Board to provide an express construction for any claim term because the Petition “establishes the prior art meets each claim limitation under any reasonable construction.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner similarly submits that “[t]he Board need not construe any terms at this stage, because under any reasonable construction of the claim terms, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed features.” Resp. 8–9. Patent Owner notes, however that “it has relied on the plain meaning of ‘frequency of play’ in Claim 7.” Id. at 9. We agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision because, even were we to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered plain meaning of “frequency of play,” Petitioner has demonstrated that the prior art renders obvious this claim limitation. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing that Kelly renders obvious the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 11–13, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 29. Resp., passim; Tr. 50:4–13.8 We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and 8 Patent Owner argued in its Preliminary Response that Kelly does not disclose limitations [1.c.iii] and [1.c.v]. Prelim. Resp. 10–12. In our Institution Decision, we did not find these contentions persuasive based on the initial record. Dec. 20–24. Patent Owner has not presented these or any other arguments contesting Ground 1 as to claim 1 in its Response. Resp., the evidence and, based on that analysis, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Kelly renders obvious the subject matter recited in these claims.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “and Paulsen render obvious claims 2 and 4. Pet. 36–40. Petitioner submits that to the extent Kelly’s player account is not player’s club information or information on non-cash amounts, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement these features based on the teachings of Paulsen. Id. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Paulsen teaches player tracking cards and player tracking programs including player tracking points. Id. at 38–40 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 8, 9, 49). Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to add these features to Kelly’s system to provide a more detailed view of tracking play, which would allow for rewarding patronage and engagement. Id. at 36–37, 39–40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 264; Ex. 1007 ¶ 10). Paulsen discloses a “gaming machine bonusing method utilizing a player tracking card.” Ex. 1007, code (54). Paulsen discloses that player tracking programs and player tracking cards were used in the art to provide rewards, or “comps,” to players based on the player’s level of patronage (e.g., to the player’s playing frequency and/or total amount of game plays at a given casino). Id. ¶ 8. These rewards were intended to maintain a player’s interest in additional game play during a visit and provide loyalty incentives to players. Id. at ¶ 9.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,335,164 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,335,164
• Axon Enterprise, Inc. / Dedrone Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Airspace Defense, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00629 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Original claim 12 is not unpatentable; substitute claim 37 is added, while substitute claims 21–28 and 30–36 are denied as obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “F.3d at 1279–80, we begin our analysis with the Specification of the ’711 Patent. The Specification indicates when a UAV (such as the recited “reference aerial vehicle”) navigates autonomously, it flies without manual control, and can, for example, track and fly to a target using information captured onboard the vehicle itself. See Ex. 1001, 3:24–28 (“[I]t may not be desirable to manually control the interceptor aerial vehicle to follow the target UAV. In some embodiments, the interceptor aerial vehicle is able to autonomously track and fly to the target UAV using machine vision based on images captured by a camera of the interceptor aerial vehicle.”). The Specification also indicates that “autonomous” means more than just “automatic flight,” and clarifies that autonomous navigation occurs when a UAV that previously received a target location from an external source subsequently turns and flies itself towards the received location. See, e.g., id. at 4:15–17 (disclosing that the detected location of a target may be provided to an interceptor “to allow it to automatically and autonomously fly toward the direction of the detected location”); 15:64–16:3 (automatic and autonomous navigation occurs when an interceptor’s navigation component and/or flight controller receive the location of a target, and adjust the interceptor “to turn and fly towards the received location . . . based on the received location”); 16:49–60 (“For example, a flight direction and/or speed of an interceptor aerial vehicle are automatically and autonomously adjusted based on a location and size of the target within the captured image. . . . This allows the flight path of the interceptor aerial vehicle to be dynamically adjusted to track and follow a moving target.”).” slip op. at 11

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

    “have had reason to combine Beard and Laufer in the manner proposed by Petitioner, the combination would not satisfy the Autonomous Navigation limitation required by claim 12 because Laufer’s autopilot commands are generated by and transmitted from a remote command center (i.e., Laufer’s central controller 115). PO Resp. 15–16. In its Reply, Petitioner does not dispute that Laufer’s autopilot commands are generated by Laufer’s central controller 115, which is remote from the aircraft being controlled. See Reply 13–17. Petitioner asserts, however, that the combination still satisfies the Autonomous Navigation limitation because these autopilot commands are generated without human input. See id. Based on the complete trial record, Patent Owner’s arguments are persuasive. See PO Resp. 15–16; PO Sur-reply 42, 1–6; Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 84–87. The flight of Beard’s UAV 100 under the control of Laufer’s autopilot commands does not satisfy the Autonomous Navigation limitation of claim 12, as we have construed that limitation, because Laufer’s autopilot commands are generated at a location that is remote from UAV 100 (Laufer’s central controller 115.) See, e.g., Ex. 1010 ¶ 40 (“Central controller 115 uses autopilot command module 440 to generate autopilot aircraft commands”), ¶¶ 26, 30 (clarifying that central controller 115 and the controlled interceptor aircraft are separate devices that may communicate through a “wireless connection”), Fig. 4 (depicting “aircraft control commands 475” being generated externally from the depicted “Interceptor Aircraft”); see also Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 95–95. Petitioner never disputes that, in the proposed combination, Laufer’s central controller 115 would remain external to Beard’s UAV 100. See Reply 13–17. Instead, Petitioner relies on its proposed construction of the Autonomous Navigation limitation, which would have encompassed such an arrangement. See id. Our construction of the Autonomous Navigation limitation, which did not adopt Petitioner’s claim construction position, is dispositive of Petitioner’s argument. We thus determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 12 would have been obvious over Beard and Laufer.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “the legal requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4, 7–8. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Patent Owner has satisfied this burden. 1. Proposal of a Reasonable Number of Substitute Claims A motion to amend must “propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(B); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3) (“A motion to amend may cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.”). “There is a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable number of substitute claims per challenged claim is one (1) substitute claim.” Lectrosonics, IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 at 4; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3). Patent Owner has shown it proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims by proposing a single substitute claim for each of challenged claims 1–4, 8–11, and 13–20. MTA 1–2, Claims App. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally MTA Opp. We determine that Patent Owner meets this requirement. 2. Amendments Respond to a Ground of Unpatentability “A motion to amend may be denied where … [t]he amendment does not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i). Patent Owner has responded to the grounds of unpatentability involved in this proceeding by amending the claims in response to the Petition’s asserted prior art. See MTA 2, 25, Claims App. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally MTA Opp. We determine that Patent Owner meets this requirement. 3. No Enlargement of the Scope of the Claims An amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.121(b)(1)–(b)(2). Patent Owner asserts that the amendments in the Motion do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent because each proposed substitute claim “retains all of the limitations of the corresponding challenged claim, and each proposed independent substitute claim adds further limitations.” See MTA 2, Claims App. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally MTA Opp. We determine that Patent Owner meets this requirement. 4. No Introduction of New Matter An amendment may not introduce new matter. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3);” slip op. at 22

  • 112 supportDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the evidence and argument cited by both parties, we determine there is sufficient written description support for the disputed portions of limitations [37.e1], [37.e3,] and [37.e4]. The ’452 application discloses selecting between groups of processing schemes (e.g., algorithms) depending on a confidence level, where the groups are, for example: high cost, high robustness algorithms; medium cost, medium robustness algorithms; and low cost, low robustness algorithms. See Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 146–147. These schemes or algorithms may be neural networks. See, e.g., id. ¶ 50 (including neural network as a type of algorithm); see also id. ¶¶ 109–110); see generally MTA Opp 1 (not disputing that schemes may be neural networks). Specifically, the ’452 application describes “algorithms that process video frames of one or more video data streams,” and “produce a prediction of objects within the video f[r]ame, as well as a confidence number that is a measure of quality for that prediction.” Id. ¶ 141. The ’452 application also discloses the concept of switching between neural networks based on confidence levels. In particular, the ’452 application discloses that a “process cycles through the processing schemes to produce a detection of an object,” for example, where “if the confidence number is higher than an activation number, an action is performed to stop or change a running group (i) and select or switch to group (ii).” Id. ¶ 146. More particularly, “a processing scheme from the group of (i) High cost (low refresh rate), high robustness algorithm[s] can select a cheaper processing scheme from the group of (ii) Medium cost, medium robustness algorithms.” Id. The ’452 application additionally discloses that schemes or algorithms (e.g., neural networks) are applied to individual video frames, and that the confidence levels that determine which neural network will be applied in the future are also derived from individual video frames. For example, as discussed above, the ’452 application describes that “[t]he processing schemes produce a prediction of objects within the video f[r]ame, as well as a confidence number that is a measure of quality for that prediction.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 141 (emphases added). The ’452 application also describes selecting and applying an individual neural network, rather than only selecting and applying a group of processing schemes. For example, as highlighted above, the ’452 application describes that “a processing scheme from the” “High” group “can select a cheaper processing scheme from the” “Medium” group. Id. ¶ 146 (emphases added). In our view, these disclosures, read together, would reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the disputed subject matter described above. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,514,711 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,514,711
• Axon Enterprise, Inc. / Dedrone Holdings, Inc. v. Airspace Defense, Inc.Other
  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 · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,713,959
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Fendgo, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00113 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–15 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 9, 11 over Zellner and Kim; claim 15 over Walker; and claims 9–14 over Martin and Kim, with claim 14 also over Martin, Kim, and Dixit.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not address, let alone dispute, Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which is consistent the problems, solutions, technology, and educational level set forth in the ’404 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. See generally PO Resp.; Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level in this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “Reviewing the written description, we find no lexicographical definition or disavowal related to “owner identification information” in the ’404 patent. Instead, we find the term mentioned in relation to embodiments and examples. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, code (57), 4:17–25. Claim 8 of the ’404 patent recites that “owner identification information includes a name and a description of the owner of the mobile device” but, as Petitioner notes, the doctrine of claim differentiation suggests the term as used in claim 1 should be construed more broadly. Paper 28, 2; Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Lab'ys, Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]his court strives to reach a claim construction that does not render claim language in dependent claims meaningless.”)). Patent Owner is correct that “owner identification information” in claim 1 of the ’404 patent must be construed to encompass the name and description of the mobile device’s owner, as recited in claim 8. Paper 29, 2. However, we decline to restrict the term to exclude other indicia that may identify the device owner because that is not warranted by the written description, claims, and file history of the ’404 patent. Consequently, we construe “owner identification information” to mean “information that identifies the owner of the mobile device” under its ordinary and customary meaning as set forth in the ’404 patent and its file history. As recited in claim 8 of the ’404 patent, the term includes, but is not limited to, the name and description of the mobile device owner.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “have been aware of the need to implement techniques to reduce risk of false activation of panic button devices, and Zellner expressly recognizes this problem. Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1008, 13:40–42; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 242, 244). Petitioner asserts that Kim’s technique of requiring the user to press its device’s emergency key button a plurality of times was a known way to reduce false activations. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 245). Petitioner posits that a POSITA would have considered the combination of Zellner and Kim to amount to the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, as well as the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 246–247). These are recognized rationales supporting a motivation to combine. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Zellner’s device to require multiple button presses as taught by Kim in order to reduce false activations. Petitioner further contends that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Zellner’s panic button to require three presses for activation, and that examples of prior art showed how this could be done. Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 248–251). Since Kim expressly discloses implementation of this feature, we agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have expected success in combining Zellner and Kim. Ex. 1008, 13:40–42.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 11,265,404 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,265,404
• Dropbox, Inc. / Microsoft Corporation v. Datanet, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00079 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–20, and 23–31 are unpatentable as obvious over Kenley and Long; the Board did not reach the alternative ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther
  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “(5) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Combine We conclude a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 9,218,348 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,218,348
• Dropbox, Inc. / Microsoft Corporation v. Datanet, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00078 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 8–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Kenley and Long; the Board did not reach the alternative ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “the ’478 patent, the applicant clearly and plainly informed the Office that an “[e]xemplary” embodiment of “searching the first temporary storage location for the archive file,” as recited in then-pending claim 34 and step [1.4] of issued claim 1, is found at specifically cited portions of the ’478 patent specification. See Ex. 1002, 147 (“Exemplary support may be found at . . . .”). Those specifically cited disclosures describe how smart data manager 15 “examines” input buffer 20 “for the presence of archive files” or equivalently “to determine whether any archive files are stored therein.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 2A (step 100), 5:39–42, 6:19–27. Based on this prosecution history, we conclude that in one embodiment of claim 1, searching the first temporary storage location for the archive file per step [1.4] is satisfied by examining the first temporary storage location for the presence of an archive file. We reach this conclusion even if the referenced portions of the ’478 patent specification are not regarded as being definitional with respect to the “searching” requirements of step [1.4].” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “(5) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Combine We conclude a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s” slip op. at 51

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Accordingly, we conclude Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 77

  Patent outcomesUS 8,473,478 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,473,478
• Dropbox, Inc. / Microsoft Corporation v. Datanet, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00080 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 10–16, and 18–21 as obvious over Sweat, and claims 9 and 17 as obvious over Sweat and Schneider.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. See PO Resp. 10–11 (“Patent Owner agrees to this definition proposed in the Petition.”). Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’850 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 7–8.” slip op. at 8

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

    “construction principles, and does not revise or ignore the explicit language of the claims.”). In that vein, “[p]roper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.” Hockerson–Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed.Cir.1999); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.”). Patent Owner’s interpretation that “the current version” requires two current versions — one locally stored current version and a corresponding remotely stored current version — asks us to improperly adopt a claim construction which ignores explicit claim language and context in order to read unrecited features into the claim. The limitation in question, more fully and in better context, recites “storing the selected previous version . . . as the current version on the local storage location.” Ex. 1001, 9:24–26 (emphasis added). The express language shows that the claim is specifically directed to the current version on the local storage location and not any possible remote current version. As such, even if there were a “current version on the remote storage location” which corresponds to and is kept in parity with the current version on the local storage location, i.e., a backup copy of the locally stored current version, the claim does not recite that feature, establishing that it does not require that feature. Further, as to the context of the claim, the term in question is part of a recited method of restoring a file to a previous version of the file on a local computational machine, rather than a method for maintaining parity of remotely stored backup files during that restoration process. See id. at 8:63–9:28. As such, the explicitly recited claim language and the context of the claim do not support reading an unrecited remote backup feature into the claim.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “been obvious to use the “Download” feature described by Sweat to replace a corrupted or otherwise compromised file, thus meeting “storing the selected previous version . . . as the current version on the local storage location.” Pet. 60–62. First, regarding the technical operation of Sweat’s download function, Petitioner explains that a user “download[s] a version of [a] file from the server 106 to the local computer 104” and selects a local “target location to save the selected file.” Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:58–63). Sweat’s download function “[c]opies the file or folder to the user’s local computer” and can “overwrite files that exist on the user’s local computer, as desired.” Ex. 1006, 5:49–55. From those disclosures, Petitioner asserts it would have been obvious to use Sweat’s download function “to restore a previous version of a file by copying the file to the user’s local computer and overwriting the current version of the file on the user’s local computer, so as to save the restored file as the new current version of that file.” Pet. 62 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 125– 126). Petitioner explains that the download function would be used in such a manner where a user “desire[s] to restore a previous version of the file to replace the current version for example, in the case where the newest version of the file has become corrupted or where desired data has been deleted from” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner. Sweat’s description of its “Viewing Files” feature explains that “a user must install the appropriate viewer to open and view drawing files.” Ex. 1006, 23:38–41. Sweat lists examples of such viewers including software applications such as Volo™ View Express. Id. at 23:45–46, 23:63–67. While Sweat does not list a CAD file creating application in its exemplary list of viewers in that “Viewing Files” section (see id. at 23:38–24:35), elsewhere, Sweat states that a CAD application, e.g., “AutoCAD®,” is “drawing/viewing software utilized by the viewer” (id. at 23:29–33). Furthermore, Petitioner’s declarant offers undisputed testimony that AutoCAD is software for creating CAD drawing files and can also be used to view those created CAD drawing files. Ex. 1024 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1029, 19–23, 541–542). On that evidence, we agree a POSITA would understand that Sweat describes using a viewer to preview previous versions of CAD drawing files and that Sweat also describes AutoCAD (which creates CAD drawing files) can be used as a viewer. In light of that understanding, we agree it would have been obvious to use AutoCAD, i.e., “an application that created the file,” to preview previous versions of that file. Pet. 62–63. We also agree that it would have been rational to do so because the same already locally available software application which created the file could then be used to view the file. Id.; see Ex. 1004 ¶ 128. Owner dismisses Petitioner’s obviousness argument as “irrelevant,” and, instead, argues that Sweat does not disclose the claimed features. PO Sur- Reply 16–17; see PO Resp. 39–40. In particular, Patent Owner argues Sweat “discloses the use of specialized viewing software to view the related file” and emphasizes that “CAD software is clearly not being used in Sweat’s ‘View in Window’ functionality” PO Resp. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1006, 23:39–51); PO Sur-Reply 17. While it may be the case that Sweat does not outright disclose the features recited in the claim, those arguments do not show fault in Petitioner’s case that the claimed features would have been obvious. See CRFD Rsch., Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Even if a reference’s teachings are insufficient to find anticipation, that same reference’s teachings may be used to find obviousness.”); Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A claimed invention may be obvious even when the prior art does not teach each claim limitation.”), overruled on other grounds by Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 is obvious over Sweat.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,585,850 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,585,850
• Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2023-01460 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Dua, Hong, and Lockwood; the Board did not reach the additional grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “lululemon proposes, and Nike does not dispute, that one skilled in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, textile engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience working with knitted textiles for use in fabric-based articles, including apparel such as footwear.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–45); see also PO Resp. 13 (“Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). There being no dispute, we adopt lululemon’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “lululemon asserts that “the plain and unambiguous language of the claim[s] requires that the flat-knitted element having the claimed features must be formed from a flat-knitting process.” Pet. 13–14. Nike agrees, and 1 US 3,641,603, issued Feb. 15, 1972 (Ex. 1003, “Lockwood”). 2 US 2005/0193592 A1, published Sep. 8, 2005 (Ex. 1004, “Dua”). 3 US 6,558,784 B1, issued May 6, 2003 (Ex. 1011, “Norton”). 4 H. Hong, The development of 3D shaped knitted fabrics for technical purposes on a flat knitting machine, INDIAN JOURNAL OF FIBRE & TEXTILE RESEARCH, VOL. 19, PGS. 189–194 (Sep. 1994) (Ex. 1005, “Hong”). 5 US 2006/0053658 A1, published Mar. 16, 2006 (Ex. 1006, “Voughlohn”). notes that our Institution Decision adopted that construction, i.e., “that the ‘domed, three dimensional structure’ of the ‘flat-knitted element,’ recited in claims 1, 10, and 11, is formed ‘during the flat-knitting process.’” PO Resp. 12 (quoting Inst. Dec. 6). Thus, the parties make clear that the claims do not encompass forming the claimed “three-dimensional structure” after the flatknitting process is complete. Thus, we maintain the construction in our Institution Decision that the claimed “central portion having a domed, threedimensional structure” must be formed during the flat-knitting process, and not afterward.” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Nike and its expert mischaracterize Hong. After close review of the opinions of both parties’ experts, we credit the opinion of lululemon’s expert as more consistent with Hong’s disclosure than that of Nike’s expert. In particular, lululemon’s expert points to Hong’s unmistakable and explicit disclosure that “knitting directly the 3D shapes can overcome fabric waste and diminish the labour cost inherent to the use of two-dimensional fabrics.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 91 (quoting Ex. 1005, 5) (emphasis added). That disclosure by Hong of “knitting directly” the 3D shape clearly suggests it is formed as part of Hong’s flat-knitting process, and not as part of some post-knit seaming process. Hong’s additional disclosure of “diminish[ing] the labour cost inherent to the use of two-dimensional fabrics” also cuts against Nike’s notion of an additional step of “forming that two-dimensional pattern piece into a three-dimensional structure” following the flat knitting step. See PO Resp. 21–22.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “d. Conclusion For all the above reasons, we find that the combination of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood teaches or suggests an article of footwear having “a domed, three-dimensional structure” that is formed during “a flat-knitting process” and “shaped to extend above the plane” of “flattened” side portions, as recited in claims 1 and 11. We also find that one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of succeeding in forming an article of footwear having such a domed, three-dimensional structure as a result of combining the teachings of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood. And, because Nike does not otherwise contest that one skilled in the art would have had sufficient reason to combine the teachings of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood or that such combination discloses the remaining elements of claims 1 and 11, we need not further address those uncontested elements. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The Board, having found the only disputed limitations together in one reference, was not required to address undisputed matters.”). Thus, we conclude that lululemon demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,730,484 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,730,484
• Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2025 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as obvious: claim 1 over Cho, Aaron, and Carpenter; claim 2 over those references and de Geer; claim 3 over Cho and Aaron; and claim 4 over Cho, Aaron, and de …

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “application are similar, as indicated by the redline comparison of two provided as Exhibit 1015. Critically, however, the “Summary of the Invention” sections are completely different. Id. at 2–4. The question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood with reasonable clarity, without the benefit of the Summary added for the ’286 patent/’674 application, that the ՚030 application describes a smart telephone that executes coded instructions to “convert the analog variable voltage audio signal received at the microphone port to the transaction data as digital data.”” slip op. at 43

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

    “Here, although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. The evidence indicates that the claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data B1-Bn” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “As discussed above in Section II.C, we construe the term “transaction data” as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. Again, we emphasize that claim 1 requires that the transaction data is accepted by the card reader from an output interface of the transaction card. Cho provides that card reader 230 reads a digital signal that includes account information of card 130 whereby the account information “may include at least one of an account number, a card expiration data, etc.” Ex. 1005, 5:54–58. We further agree with Petitioner that to the extent “transaction data” is for the purpose of conducting banking transactions, Cho’s account data of a credit card number and expiration date can perform that purpose. Patent Owner’s arguments that the transaction data cannot be “static” and that claim 1 requires “processing actual transaction-specific data” are not commensurate with the scope of the claim 1. The claim does not recite any limitations that the transaction data be dynamic or “not static,” nor does it recite any processing of the transaction data outside of using it to “facilitate transactions.” Petitioner has shown that Cho teaches the claimed transaction data.” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 9,679,286 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,679,286
• Nintendo Co., Ltd. / Nintendo Of America Inc. v. Gamevice, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00643 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Willner and Park; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The main distinction between Petitioner’s ordinarily skilled artisan and Patent Owner’s is that Patent Owner’s definition requires “a mechanical engineering degree” whereas Petitioner’s definition allows for a degree in “mechanical, electrical, or computer engineering.” See Pet. Reply 16 (citing Pet. 13). However, Mr. Kitchen states that he qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art based on Patent Owner’s proffered definition “even without an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering” because he has “over 40 years of experience in the design and development of interactive products, including specifically with respect to handheld gaming devices.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–30). Mr. Kitchen asserts that his experience is in “the same category of products claimed in the ’393 patent and described in the prior art references at issue in this proceeding.” Id. In view of this and based on the complete record before us, we view the parties’ proposals as substantially the same because Petitioner’s proposed definition includes the requisite education Patent Owner’s definition requires. Thus, we find (as we did in the Institution Decision) that Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’393 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 20–21 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). More particularly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the education component for the level of ordinary skill in the art for computing gaming devices would be limited to just mechanical engineering. We note that, based on the record and evidence before us, our decision and analysis would be the same applying either party’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “After reviewing the full record, we determine that it is unnecessary to construe the term “confinement structures,” as it appears in the limitation “a pair of confinement structures” to reach a determination in this proceeding. 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)). However, we will address the parties’ dispute regarding whether the prior art discloses or teaches physical component(s) that hold(s) a computing device within our merits analysis below. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other claim terms and we find that no other terms require express construction to resolve the controversy between the parties. Accordingly, we do not construe any other claim terms expressly. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“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., 200 F.3d at 803).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “First, the test for obviousness “is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, . . . but rather whether ‘a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pet. Reply 11–12 (arguing the same). Second, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed combination would fail “to retain[] computing device 10 in position during normal user operation” because Park’s adjustable bridge “configuration does not allow mobile phone (1) to be seated for stability in the device.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 42; Ex. 2004 ¶ 68). At the outset, we note that Patent Owner’s argument mischaracterizes the disclosure of Park. Instead, we find Park discloses that a “basic configuration of [Park’s] game pad device for a mobile phone according to the present invention” “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 41. Although Park discloses that “mobile phone (1) may come loose during gaming or become detached in severe cases” (id. ¶ 41), we do not view this disclosure to otherwise negate Park’s teaching that its adjustable bridge (30,40) “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Id. We credit Mr. Kitchen’s declaration testimony to that effect. See Ex. 1033 ¶ 47 (declaring that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood this disclosure to mean that a computing device (mobile phone) would have been secured by the device for normal use . . . as part of a handheld gaming device.”).” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and find more credible Mr. Kitchen’s opinion regarding “normal user operation.” In doing so, we credit Mr. Kitchen’s opinion that Willner’s sidewalls would “function to secure the sides of the computing device and hold it in place” and, “[i]n the combination, Park’s bridge would be adjusted to reduce the length of the bridge and thereby ‘mount’ a computing device by having Willner’s side walls (confinement structures) ‘apply pressure’ to opposing sides of the computing device.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–156 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38–41). We note that the ’393 patent operates in a similar manner using a sufficient compressive load to hold a computing device. More particularly, the ’393 patent discloses that [t]he expansion and contraction of the distance between the pair of confinement structures 316, facilitates placement of the computing device 302 between the pair of confinement structures 316, the application of sufficient compressive load being placed on the computing device 302 to securely hold the computing device between the pair of confinement structures 316. Ex. 1001, 10:11–20. Thus, we find Mr. Kitchen’s opinion credible and supported by the complete record. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Willner and Park teaches or suggests “a pair of confinement structures,” as recited by limitation 1[b][1].” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,391,393 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,391,393

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.