• 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
• Geneoscopy, Inc. v. Exact Sciences CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01330 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3, 4, and 12–19 are unpatentable as obvious under each asserted ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther
  • Expert testimonyOther
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “embody claims of the ’746 patent, the product has features not covered by the ’746 patent’s claims, some of which are critical unclaimed elements according to Patent Owner. Accordingly, Cologuard is not coextensive with the challenged claims, and no nexus between the product and the challenged claims is shown on this record.” slip op. at 35

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

    “developed where the patient need not manipulate their fecal sample to portion it, but the law of obviousness does not require an option to be the best option to be obvious. For these reasons, bearing in mind that the ultimate burden here is always on Petitioner, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. We also reject Patent Owner’s argument that only impermissible” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 11,970,746 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,970,746
• Petitioner v. Intent Iq, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00129 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–152 are unpatentable over the asserted prior-art grounds; the Board also struck Section II of Petitioner’s reply claim-construction brief.

  Nonecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,861,260
• Viant Techology LLC v. Intent Iq, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00422 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–152 unpatentable based on the asserted obviousness grounds and struck Section II of Petitioner’s reply claim-construction brief.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Decision issues pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

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

    “1. “Contracted to Display a TV Ad Petitioner argues that the term means “contracted to display any form” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentGranted

    “FURTHER ORDERED that Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief is stricken from the record; and” slip op. at 80

  Patent outcomesUS 7,861,260 unpatentable
  Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,861,260
• Viant Technology, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00128 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–152 unpatentable based on obviousness grounds and struck Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “Contracted to Display a TV Ad Petitioner argues that the term means “contracted to display any form” slip op. at 14

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

    “d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Baig, Costa, and Zwicky. 5. Analysis of Claims 2–5, 7–9, 12, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26–28, 31, 32, 34, 37, 42, 44, 53, 54–58, 61, 62, 69, 71–80, 83, 84, 86–88, 91, 94, 96, 100, 101, 103, 106, 116–119, 122, 125, 128, 135, 137– 145, 147, 148, 151, and 152 Petitioner argues that the combination of Baig, Costa, and Zwicky teaches the limitations recited in claims 2–5, 7–9, 12, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26–28, 31, 32, 34, 37, 42, 44, 53, 54–58, 61, 62, 69, 71–80, 83, 84, 86–88, 91, 94, 96, 100, 101, 103, 106, 116–119, 122, 125, 128, 135, 137–145, 147, 148, 151, and 152 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 28–60; 422Pet. 29–51. Petitioner’s arguments are supported by citations to the prior art and the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Pet. 28–60; 422Pet. 29–51. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, agree with them, and, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as our own. Patent Owner does not separately address those claims. See PO Resp.; 422PO Resp. Instead, Patent Owner only relies on the arguments discussed above for claim 1. See PO Resp. 13–16; 422PO Resp. 13–16. For the same reason as discussed above in Section II.D.4(b), we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the reason to combine the references. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence” slip op. at 50

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “F. Sua Sponte Striking Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief Our order allowing post-hearing claim construction briefing stated that “[t]he parties may not address any issues besides claim construction.” Paper 38, 1. Despite that order, Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief addresses obviousness under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Pet. Reply Post-hearing Br. 2–3 (Titled: “The Petition’s Obviousness Theory Renders Claims 121 and 146 Obvious Even Under Patent Owner’s Improper Construction.”). Because the section is in violation of our order, we sua sponte strike that section. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.12.” slip op. at 74

  Patent outcomesUS 7,861,260 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,861,260
• Viant Techology LLC v. Intent Iq, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00421 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–152 unpatentable over the asserted prior art and struck Section II of Petitioner’s reply claim construction brief.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has demonstrated by a” slip op. at 50

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “1. “Contracted to Display a TV Ad Petitioner argues that the term means “contracted to display any form” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentGranted

    “F. Sua Sponte Striking Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief Our order allowing post-hearing claim construction briefing stated that “[t]he parties may not address any issues besides claim construction.” Paper 38, 1. Despite that order, Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief addresses obviousness under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Pet. Reply Post-hearing Br. 2–3 (Titled: “The Petition’s Obviousness Theory Renders Claims 121 and 146 Obvious Even Under Patent Owner’s Improper Construction.”). Because the section is in violation of our order, we sua sponte strike that section. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.12.” slip op. at 74

  Patent outcomesUS 7,861,260 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,861,260
• Geneoscopy, Inc. v. Exact Sciences CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00459 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over each of the six asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Here, as in our Institution Decision, we do not discern a significant difference between the parties’ respective proposed definitions beyond the number of years of experience after obtaining a doctoral degree. Compare Pet. 12, with Prelim. Resp. 47, and Resp. 19–20; see also DI 7–8. Under either proposed definition, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been very highly skilled and educated. For purposes of this Final Decision, we maintain that Patent Owner’s definition appears to be reasonable (and it falls between Petitioner’s two definitions asserted in the reexamination request and in the Petition). Further, Patent Owner’s proposed definition appears to comport with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’781 patent itself, for example, Vilkin’s authors are a group of medical doctors and an editor of the journal is a PhD, Joost Louwagie, the named inventor of the ’781 patent, holds a PhD in Biochemistry, and the authors of Itzkowitz are medical doctors and PhDs. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see Ex. 1005, 3 (list of authors); Ex. 1016 (Dr. Louwagie profile); Ex. 1055; see also generally Reply (Petitioner did not contest our similar determination at Institution). Therefore, we adopt and use Patent Owner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, set forth above. C.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner asserts that no claim construction is necessary in this proceeding. See generally Pet. Similarly, Patent Owner states that it “does not believe that claim construction is necessary to resolve patentability” in this proceeding. Resp. 21. “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with the parties that no construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of our Final Decision. D.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Pet. 12. In support of these grounds for unpatentability, Petitioner relies on, inter alia, the 1st and 2nd Declarations of Duncan Whitney, PhD. Ex. 1002; Ex. 1080. In support of its positions, Patent Owner relies on, inter alia, the 1st and 2nd Declarations of Vadim Backman, PhD, and the Declaration of Peter Wood. Ex. 2001; Ex. 2022; Ex. 2023.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We have no reasonable doubt that aspects of the Cologuard product practice the invention of the ’781 patent’s claims 1 and 3, which are most generally directed to steps of collecting two portions of a fecal sample at home, and combining a respective buffer stabilizer/preservative with each of the two portions for claim 1, and then processing those fecal samples by testing for blood and nucleic acids (e.g., DNA) for claim 3. These appear to be nearly the most basic steps for using the Cologuard kit. See generally Ex. 2032. And, these steps do illustrate a certain ease of use and consumerfriendliness that may be a contributing factor in Cologuard’s success. See, e.g., Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 140–142, 155, 158–159, 170–171.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,634,781 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,634,781
• Apple Inc. v. Willow Laboratories, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00296 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10–13, 15, 17, 19–21, 23–26, and 28 are unpatentable as obvious over Abdul-Hafiz and Raley, or over Abdul-Hafiz, Raley, and Secker.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “appear to be that Patent Owner specifies that the POSITA’s knowledge and experience may include optical sensors and that the POSITA may have a degree emphasizing software. We do not deem these differences material, particularly because the optical sensors and technologies at issue are those used in physiological monitoring technologies. Moreover, both parties agree that the POSITA would have a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 22; Ex. 2079 ¶ 37. Nonetheless, we find the additional specificity of Patent Owner’s definition to be helpful. Also, Patent Owner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’911 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the POSITA. We note, however, that we would reach the same outcome under either definition of the POSITA. See also PO Resp. 12 (Patent Owner asserting “under any proposed level of skill, the claims’ patentability is confirmed for at least the reasons set forth below.”).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Kenny’s explanation finds support in Raley, and we find his explanation credible. Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 9–11. We agree that Raley’s opening 26 has a vertical depth. In order for emitters 21, 22, 23, 24 to be flush with opening 26 as depicted in Raley’s Figure 3 (see PO Resp. 17–18 (arguing that LEDs are flush with opening 26)), the opening must have a depth to accommodate the thickness of the emitters. We further agree that opening 26 is within a solid body, namely interconnect cable 20. We also agree that, in view of the structure and function of Raley’s probe 40 and interconnect cable segment 20, a POSITA would have understood opening 26 is designed to receive the emitters therein. Given that Raley’s interconnect cable segment 20 includes opening 26 that is designed to receive emitters 21, 22, 23, 24 therein, Petitioner has persuaded us that Raley’s LEDs are recessed into a cavity under both the plain and ordinary meaning of “cavity” and Petitioner’s construction from the Delaware Litigation.” slip op. at 27

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

    “testimony regarding a POSITA’s understanding of Figure 11B of Abdul-Hafiz. Ex. 2079 ¶¶ 87–88. More pertinent to claim construction, however, is a POSITA’s understanding of the claim term in view of the Specification. See, e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“As we stated in Vitronics, the specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Circ. 1996))). In this regard, Petitioner points to Dr. Madisetti’s Rebuttal Expert Report, which was submitted on behalf of Patent Owner in the Delaware Litigation, where, upon reviewing the Specification of the ’911 patent for written description support for the claims, Dr. Madisetti testifies that “[a] POSITA would have known that the detection surface area of a given detector is essentially the entire surface area of the detector.” Ex. 1082 ¶ 912. During oral argument, Patent Owner attempts to reconcile the apparent inconsistency between this testimony and Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Tr. 34:20–36:12. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that, according to the ’911 patent Specification, the entire surface of the light-detecting side of the detector is the area that light reaches because there is “nothing blocking the entire area of the of the light-detecting side of the detector from receiving light.” Id. at 35:12–13. Patent Owner’s assertion, however, ignores EMI shield grid 2444 and foil 2450 that are placed on and at least partly cover the light-detecting side of the detector. Ex. 1001, 13:38–53, Fig. 24. Accordingly, we find Dr. Madisetti’s testimony regarding a POSITA’s understanding of the Petitioner’s construction, and we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “a detection surface area of the at least one detector” as the surface area of the light-detecting side of the detector.” slip op. at 16

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

    “reasons against it in the Sur-reply, we are persuaded that a POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Abdul-Hafiz’s aperture to have an area smaller than the detection surface area to prevent optical noise sources such as ambient light and piped light reaching the detector. We disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not explain why a POSITA would have made Abdul-Hafiz’s aperture smaller than the detection surface area. Preventing optical noise sources explains why a POSITA would have made Abdul-Hafiz’s aperture smaller than the detection surface area because making the area of the aperture smaller than the detection surface area helps prevent optical noise sources from reaching the detector. Even if Abdul-Hafiz’s low noise housing 400 and fixed shield 1005 mitigate optical motivation to make something better. See Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[W]e have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists . . . when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.”). Adding an additional protection against optical noise by limiting the diameter of Abdul-Hafiz’s aperture would have enhanced the optical noise mitigation of the low noise housing and fixed shield. Moreover, apart from Abdul-Hafiz, Petitioner does not identify in the prior art an opening having a smaller area than a detection surface area. Petitioner, however, identifies a known relationship between the size of the opening relative to the detection surface area and preventing optical noise from ambient light and piped light. Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 33); Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1011, 96–97, Fig. 6.6; Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 30–32; Ex. 1080 ¶ 73; Ex. 1081, 12:51–63, 14:19–47, 14:28–47). When one parameter is known to influence a specific result, such as the size of the opening relative to the detection surface area preventing optical noise, discovering the optimum value of the parameter is generally obvious. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (Fed. Cir. 1980) (“Discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” (citing In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955))). Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that the proposed modification to Abdul-Hafiz, namely reducing the area of the aperture to be smaller than the detection surface area, is simple and that a” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 10,984,911 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,984,911
• 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
• ZF North America, Inc. / ZF Active Safety US Inc. v. Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00273 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 7, 8, 14–19, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under §103 over the grounds decided; the motion to exclude was denied in part and dismissed in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties agree that one skilled in the relevant art would have had a bachelor’s degree in a relevant engineering discipline, plus at least two years of experience with what each believes to be the relevant technology. Though Patent Owner objects to explicitly listing a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering as a qualifying educational background, its proposed formulation includes open-ended language (i.e., “or a similar discipline”) that is broad enough to encompass electrical engineering degrees. Patent Owner also concedes that Dr. Lequesne, who has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, is qualified to give testimony from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Hrg. Tr. 36:9–21. Accordingly, it does not appear that there is a substantive dispute regarding the educational requirements that is relevant to this proceeding. As to the necessary experience, Petitioner correctly points out that “most” claims of the ’415 Patent do not recite isolators or require attenuation or damping. Pet. Reply 23. However, the challenged independent claims (claims 5, 8, 16, and 17) all recite at least an isolator with a damping coefficient, and the ’415 Patent repeatedly mentions noise attenuation as being a goal of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:53–55, 5:33– 56. Patent Owner’s proposal also uses the disjunctive “or,” and thus is broad one or more of vibration isolation, vibration damping, or noise attenuation. On this record, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal, and determine that one of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’415 Patent pertains would have had a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering, automotive engineering, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience with vibration isolation, vibration damping, or noise attenuation in the context of mechanical or electromechanical systems. We find that this formulation is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. We note, however, that none of the issues in this case appears to turn on differences between the parties’ proposed formulations, and that all of the findings and conclusions set forth below would have remained the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed formulation. C.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We begin our analysis of this dispute by looking at the language of the claims themselves. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In so doing, we note that Patent Owner is correct in asserting that certain claims recite a vibration isolator disposed between a sub-frame and an actuator housing. See Ex. 1001, Claims 16, 17; PO Resp. 17. Other challenged claims, however, do not contain any limitations that pertain to an actuator housing. See Ex. 1001, claims 5, 7, 8. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, thus, would incorporate new limitations pertaining to an actuator housing into at least claims 5, 7, and 8. Next, we turn to the specification. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. In so doing, we note that it is generally improper to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims because 35 U.S.C. § 112 “requires that the claims themselves set forth the limits of the patent grant, [and] also definitions of terms to the exact representations depicted in the embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. There are, of course, exceptions. A specification may contain a “special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess.” Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 805 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). But any such special definition must “clearly redefine a claim term ‘so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.’” Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Scientific Int’l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Process Control Corp. v. Hydreclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The specification also may “reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal of claim scope by the inventor.” Phillips, 415. F.3d at 1316. But any such disclaimer “must be clear.” Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Patent Owner is correct in its assertion that the specific embodiments disclosed in the ’415 Patent specification have separate sub-frames and actuator housings. See PO Resp. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:44–54, 6:36–54). But the specification also makes clear that the applicant intended for these embodiments not to be construed as limiting the scope of the claims. See Ex. 1001, 8:36–42 (clarifying that the disclosed embodiments “are set forth here by way of illustration but not of limitation”). Patent Owner identifies nothing in the specification that rises to level of a definition or clear and intentional disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope, and we see no such definition or disclaimer in the specification. Patent Owner’s reliance on In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017), is also misplaced. In re broadest reasonable interpretation standard—a standard that does not apply in this case. See id. at 1381–82. Moreover, the claim construction at issue in Smith was so broad that the Federal Circuit characterized it as “generic.” See id. at 1382. Here, the parties agree that the claim term sub-frame has a specific meaning: a frame for a sub-assembly. See PO Resp. 16; Pet. Reply 13; Hrg. Tr. 13:7–12. Nothing in Smith requires or suggests that under the Phillips standard, we must interpret the non-generic claim term “sub-frame” in a way that would incorporate new limitations pertaining to an actuator housing into claims that do not even mention an actuator housing.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We decline to find Dr. Lequesne less credible based solely on his electrical engineering degree and relative level of experience with noise vibration and damping. As noted above, Patent Owner does not dispute that Dr. Lequesne is qualified to give testimony from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that “Dr. Lequesne has spent his 40-year career as a designer in the automotive industry, has worked on EPBA [electronic parking brake actuators and NVH [noise, vibration, and harshness].” Pet. Reply 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 7–9; Ex. 2007, 10:6–17, 11:21–16:3, 20:3–31:8; Ex. 1023). On this record, we find Dr. Lequesne qualified to provide expert testimony on the subject matter of the challenged claims of the ’415 Patent and asserted prior art references because he has a degree in electrical engineering, which is a “similar discipline,” and at least two years of experience with “vibration isolation, vibration damping, or noise attenuation in the context of mechanical or electromechanical systems.” See supra § III.B; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 4–12 (outlining Dr. Lequesne’s education and experience); Hrg. Tr. 36:9– 21 (Patent Owner’s counsel conceding that Dr. Lequesne is qualified to provide expert testimony). In judging the credibility of competing witnesses, we have weighed their testimony, taking into account the witnesses’ different educational qualifications and experiential backgrounds as they pertain to the ’415 Patent, as well as whether the witnesses offer corroboration for their opinions, and whether those opinions are consistent with the ’415 Patent, the prior art, and their cross-examination testimony. E.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s purported evidence of copying, industry praise, and commercial success lacks nexus to the claimed invention. To show that the accused devices at issue, i.e., the purportedly copied, praised, and commercially successful products sold be Petitioner, are coextensive with at least one independent claim of the ’415 Patent, Patent Owner relies on the claim charts shown in Exhibit 2016. PO Resp. 62; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 163–166. Patent Owner identifies those charts as “Exhibits A and B from Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions, served in Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. v. ZF North America, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:22cv10289.” Id. at viii. As such, the claim charts are apparently attorney argument summarizing Patent Owner’s allegations in the district court, not substantive evidence. See Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence.”). Patent Owner’s attempt to challenged claims also constitutes an improper incorporation by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”); PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35–36; Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 8–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative). Moreover, Dr. Stein’s declaration lacks any explanation or analysis to support his belief that “there is a component in each of the photographed products” in the claim charts “that corresponds to each one of the claim elements,” his “overall agreement with the positions taken in the claim charts,” or his “understand[ing]” that the accused devices “in Ex. 2016 are co-extensive in scope with the ’415 Patent.” Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 163, 166. Dr. Stein’s declaration merely repeats, in conclusory fashion, that there is a nexus between the accused devices and the claimed invention, and is thus insufficient to establish a nexus. See Bosch Auto. Serv. Sol., LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As the Board recognized, however, the Pierce declaration lacks any explanation or analysis to support his asserted ‘understand[ing]’ that these commercial reset tools are covered by, or coextensive with, the claims of the ’796 patent. The Board permissibly concluded that this conclusory testimony lacks foundation.”); In re Cree, Inc., 818 F.3d 694, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We agree with the Board that Dr. Brandes’ declaration merely repeats, in conclusory fashion, that there is a nexus between the success of white LEDs and the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner has thus failed to make a sufficient showing to establish a presumption of nexus. its secondary considerations evidence is a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention. For the reasons explained above, we conclude that Patent Owner’s evidence purportedly showing copying, industry praise, and commercial success is entitled to little weight in our obviousness analysis because Patent Owner has not shown a sufficient nexus between the evidence presented and the invention claimed in any of the challenged claims. F.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,021,415 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,021,415

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.