- Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00710 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9, 13, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Schneier and over Schneier with Okita; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable under either ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not contradicted and is consistent with the technology and descriptions in the ’294 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner indicates that “[t]his Petition establishes that the prior art meets each of the claim limitations under any reasonable construction. Thus, no express construction is required.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 86). In its Response, Patent Owner indicates that no constructions are necessary “because under any reasonable construction of the claim terms, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed features.” PO Resp. 4–5. Because there is no dispute between the parties as to any particular claim term and because the claims, as a whole, are reasonably clear on their face, no specific claim construction is necessary in this proceeding.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“rather than 10 credits, does not have a temporal component. Ex. 1008, 63:31–34. Rather, it describes an option for the user or player to obtain a discount at a particular point in time if the player is willing to purchase 20 rather than 10 credits. Id. Petitioner’s citations to this embodiment do not 9. Pet. 31; Pet. Reply 3–7 (citing Ex. 1008, 63:31–34). In this embodiment the $0.30 and $0.50 multipliers are constant, and the user is simply choosing between two existing options at a particular time to potentially take advantage of a $0.20 discount on credits. Comparatively, the $0.30 and $0.50 multipliers are different, but they are not “variable over time,” as required by claim 9. Ex. 1001, 47:38–40.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“and reliance on Figure 19 do not in any way explain how updating game costs by meter 502 with a new Cost_Table is relevant to a credit multiplier or even a multiplier being varied over time. Ex. 1003 ¶ 155. Considering this evidence, we determine that Petitioner and Mr. Crevelt’s reliance mainly on snippets from Schneier’s “Updating Cost Information protocol” embodiment does not sufficiently explain why or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood updating game cost to encompass varying a multiplier of credits over time. We also note that during his deposition, Mr. Crevelt was given opportunity to clarify his testimony as to Figure 19 and explain the cost updating embodiment in Schneier, and mostly demurred. See Ex. 2004:158:4–182:6. Explaining his reliance on Figure 19, Mr. Crevelt stated: A: And whatever latest price from that updated cost information coming from the central site is -- is variable, it’s variable as time proceed[s]. It’s a – it’s a, much of a complicated section, and -- but the information is in the Schneier patent and shows that it could have -- it should change over time. Id. at 158:23–159:5. Mr. Crevelt further stated that: A: . . . for a metered play where you’re buying so much time or so many credits or so many games on a specific game and when it runs out, then have you to buy more, and that variable can change over time. relates Schneier’s “updated cost,” with the claimed “multiplier” and “variable,” and does not adequately explain how they are equivalent or interconnected. See, e.g., id. at 160:16–23 (Mr. Crevelt testifying that “we can go from the description of figure 19, which starts at basically the top of column 56 in the Schneier patent, and . . . describes this process in detail of how the information is transferred from one place to the other and updated.”). Mr. Crevelt concludes that Schneier’s description is “complicated,” and from Figure 19 asserts the cost somehow includes a credit multiplier that “could” or “should” change over time. Id. at 158:23– 159:5. Overall, this testimony fails to sufficiently explain or point to persuasive evidence in Schneier as to how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the Figure 19 cost updating embodiment discloses a time-variable multiplier as required in claim 8.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 10,825,294 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,825,294 - Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00709 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14–18, 21–23, 25, 27, and 29 are unpatentable as obvious over Schneier and over Schneier with Okita; claim 9 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states it “does not dispute Petitioners’ proposed level of skill, and under any level of skill a POSITA would not understand the asserted Grounds to raise any unpatentability issue.” PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner states further that “this [Patent Owner Response] and supporting declarations apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” Id. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not contradicted and is consistent with the technology and descriptions in the ’635 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner indicated in the Petition that “[t]his Petition establishes that the prior art meets each of the claim limitations under any reasonable construction.[] Thus, no express construction is required.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 85). In its Response, Patent Owner indicates that no constructions are necessary “because under any reasonable construction of the claim terms, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed features.” PO Resp. 4–5. Because there is no dispute between the parties as to any particular claim term and because the claims, as a whole, are reasonably clear on their face, no specific claim construction is necessary in this proceeding.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We also note that during his deposition, Mr. Crevelt was given opportunity to clarify his testimony as to Figure 19 and explain the cost updating embodiment in Schneier, and mostly demurred. See Ex. 2004, 158:4–182:6. Explaining his reliance on Figure 19, Mr. Crevelt stated: A: And whatever latest price from that updated cost information coming from the central site is -- is variable, it’s variable as time proceed[s]. It’s a – it’s a, much of a complicated section, and -- but the information is in the Schneier patent and shows that it could have -- it should change over time. Id. at 158:23–159:5. Mr. Crevelt further stated that: A: . . . for a metered play where you’re buying so much time or so many credits or so many games on a specific game and when it runs out, then have you to buy more, and that variable can change over time. Id. at 161:2–6. These explanations are unpersuasive because the testimony relates Schneier’s “updated cost,” with the claimed “multiplier” and “variable,” and does not adequately explain how they are equivalent or interconnected. See, e.g., id. at 160:16–23 (Mr. Crevelt testifying that “we can go from the description of figure 19, which starts at basically the top of column 56 in the Schneier patent, and . . . describes this process in detail of how the information is transferred from one place to the other and updated.”). Mr. Crevelt concludes that Schneier’s description is “complicated,” and from Figure 19 asserts the cost somehow includes a credit multiplier that “could” or “should” change over time. Id. at 158:23– 159:5. Overall, this testimony fails to sufficiently explain or point to in the art would have understood that the Figure 19 cost updating embodiment discloses a time-variable multiplier as required in claim 9.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Discount Credit Pricing Structure The $0.20 discount described by Schneier for purchasing 20 credits, rather than 10 credits, does not have a temporal component. Ex. 1008, 63:31–34. Rather, it describes an option for the user or player to obtain a discount at a particular point in time if the player is willing to purchase 20 rather than 10 credits. Id. Petitioner’s citations to this embodiment do not address the idea of a time component, i.e., “over time,” as required by claim 9. Pet. 31; Pet. Reply 3–7 (citing Ex. 1008, 63:31–34). In this embodiment the $0.30 and $0.50 multipliers are constant, and the user is simply choosing between two existing options at a particular time to potentially take advantage of a $0.20 discount on credits. Comparatively, the $0.30 and $0.50 multipliers are different, but they are not “variable over time,” as required by claim 9. Ex. 1001, 47:38–40.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 10,650,635 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,650,635 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00530 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Original claims 1–9 were canceled; the non-contingent motion to add substitute claims 10–18 was denied for lack of written-description support, and claim 18 was also indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“that either the ’303 application or the ’838 provisional contain adequate written description support for the disputed feature of limitation [10.d]. Though the disclosures cited by Patent Owner indicate that a secondary identifier can be used to aid in verification of a UAV, these disclosures also make clear that both first and second identifiers are transmitted by and received from the UAV. See, e.g., Ex. 2002, 4:15–17, 30:24–31:6; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 14, 66. Patent Owner’s reliance on disclosure characterized as transmitting an identifier from a remote computing system “through the UAV” (Reply 2) is not persuasive. The cited disclosures from the ’303 application and ’838 provisional generally disclose that the identifiers transmitted by a UAV can be “generated remotely,” such as by a “remote computing system.” Ex. 2002, 14:23–15:2; Ex. 2003 ¶ 45. But Patent Owner has not identified disclosure indicating that a remote computing system may transmit an identifier to the identification receiver. In the ’303 application and ’838 provisional, only the UAV (which is part of the discrimination system, and thus not “remote”) actually transmits identifiers to the identification receiver. Patent Owner is correct in its assertion that an “aerial system identifier can be generated on-board the aerial system” or “generated remotely . . . at a remote computing system.” Mot. 7 (citing Ex. 2002, 14:23–15:2; Ex. 2003 ¶ 45). But even if a UAV’s identifier was at some time in the past generated by a remote computing system, the subsequent transmission of that identifier from the UAV to the identification receiver would not satisfy the plain language of limitation [10.d]. The claim language “receive … a second identifier from a computing system that is remote to the discrimination system” requires the receipt of a transmission of the second identifier from a remote computing system. This claim language limits the source of the received transmission (i.e., where the particular transmission is “receive[d] … from”). Thus, the relevant issue is from where was the recited second identifier received. The relevant is not where the second identifier was originally generated.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteIndefiniteMixed
“We determine that the disputed language in limitation [10.d] is not indefinite. There is no recitation in proposed substitute claim 10 that the second identifier is transmitted solely from the identifier transmission system. Thus, the alleged irreconcilable contradiction cited by Petitioner is not recited in the claims. Petitioner’s position appears to rest on the fact that the ’303 application and ’838 provisional do not disclose receiving the second identifier from a remote computing system. See Sur-reply 6 (“To manufacture written description support, [Patent Owner] argues the claim encompasses identifiers routed ‘through the UAV.’”). Though we agree that limitation [10.d] lacks adequate written description support, this defect does not render the claim indefinite because the scope of limitation [10.d] is otherwise reasonably certain based on its plain language. See supra § III.C.4.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for patent owner
“In contrast, the ’393 provisional never discloses that the described drone defense system may use the identity of a detected drone to develop a particular countermeasure. The disclosed RTSS certainly uses identity information to determine whether a drone is a threat. And if a threat is identified, the RTSS immediately starts “a series of processes … to determine what rule of engagement will be applied on the intruding drone.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 10. The ’393 provisional discloses that the system may select a particular countermeasure based on (i) the particular zone within a protected area within which a drone is located, (ii) “the behavior of the hostile drone,” or (iii) “other instructions.” Id. ¶¶ 9, 10. But the ’393 provisional never discloses that these “other instructions” may include the identity of the drone. The system disclosed in the ’393 provisional uses the identity of a drone to determine whether to activate the countermeasure system. See id. ¶¶ 16–18. But there is no disclosure in the ’393 provisional that the countermeasure system, once activated, uses the identity of the drone to develop the particular countermeasure to be employed. See generally Ex. 1006. Thus, though the Whitmarsh reference itself contains ample written description support for limitation [19e], the earlier-filed ’393 provisional does not. On this record, and having reviewed the ’393 provisional in its entirety, we determine that the ’393 provisional does not “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of” the subject matter of limitation [19e] of Whitmarsh’s claim 19 “as of the filing date” of the ’393 provisional. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 27
§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,249,199 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00525 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Original claim 21 was canceled; the Board denied substitute claim 22 for new matter and held it obvious under §103 based on six combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“First, Patent Owner has not shown possession of the disputed feature of a “radio communication module [that] is configured to utilize a secure identifier, the secure identifier comprising a specified excitation.” In the ’406 application, the term “excitation” is used exclusively to refer to a light beam signal. See Ex. 2015, 7:8–13, 9:8–10, 23:9.2 The ’406 application discloses that an identification box on an aircraft may include both an RF module and a separate light sensor. See Ex. 2015, 7:3–11. But nowhere does the ’406 application describe receiving a light beam (e.g., an excitation) with the RF module of the identification box (as opposed to the light sensor), so as to provide support for proposed substitute claim 22’s recitation of a “radio communication module” configured to utilize “a secure identifier . . . comprising a specified excitation.” We disagree with Patent Owner that it suffices that one of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that these disclosures are equally applicable to the RF-only embodiments” (Reply 5). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement . . . that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). On this record, and having reviewed the ’959 Patent, the ’153 provisional, and the ’406 application, we find no evidence in those documents that the named inventor was in possession of the concept of a radio communications module “configured to utilize a secure identifier” where “the secure identifier compris[es] a specified excitation.” Second, setting aside the “radio communication module” in proposed substitute claim 22, Patent Owner also has not shown that the named inventor was in possession of the feature of a “secure identifier comprising a specified excitation.” Patent Owner’s argument that the ’406 application describes a light beam directed to a particular aircraft (see Reply 4–5) is 2 The same is true of the ’153 provisional. See Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 29, 34. unavailing. The fact that the properties of a particular light beam indicate that the light beam is intended for a particular aircraft does not demonstrate that the light beam is a “secure identifier,” as we have construed that term. Patent Owner has not identified any disclosure in the ’406 application of a “secure identifier” comprising a light beam, let alone that such light beam can be utilized by a “radio communication module.” The only references to “secure” identifiers in the ’406 application describe radio frequency signals. See Ex. 2015, 2:4–6, 15:21–17:12.3 Having reviewed the ’959 Patent, the ’153 provisional, and the ’406 application, we find no evidence in those documents that the named inventor was in possession of the concept of a “secure identifier comprising a specified excitation.”” slip op. at 15
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“not impermissibly broaden the scope of the claims of the ’959 Patent. As Patent Owner suggests, there were no limitations in original claim 21 on the type of radio signal the radio communication module could receive, and so it follows that proposed substitute claim 22 does not now encompass receiving a broader set of radio signals. We see no basis for Petitioner’s argument that the past tense verb “received” limited original claim 21 to “signals of a compatible ‘type’ and ‘range.’” Opp. 7. Moreover, the claim language (with the proposed deletion shown double brackets) provides that “the radio communication module is configured to receive a [[received]] radio signal.” Any radio signal that the radio communications module receives would necessarily be a “received” radio signal. Thus, deleting the redundant word “received” does not enlarge the scope of this claim limitation. We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s suggestion that removing the term “received” broadens original claim 21 by deleting a requirement that the radio signal have already been previously received by the claimed device. See Sur-reply 9. Original claim 21 simply recited, using redundant language, that “the radio communication module is configured to receive a received radio signal.” Ex. 1001, 18:5–7. The most natural reading of this language is that the phrase “received radio signal” is just a description of a radio signal that is received by the recited radio communications module. Petitioner has cited no persuasive evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have counterintuitively interpreted this language to impose an additional requirement that the “received radio signal” must have been received twice—a first time by some other component of the device, and a second time by the recited radio communication module. Accordingly, we determine that the proposed amendment does not improperly broaden claim scope.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“572 U.S. 898 (2014). See Memorandum: Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021).4 Under Nautilus, a claim is indefinite if fails to “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” 572 U.S. at 910. We agree with Patent Owner that neither of the identified terms are indefinite. Regarding the term “low-altitude aircraft,” we determine the Specification provides a sufficient basis for understanding the scope and meaning of this term with reasonable certainty. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit has explained that, when a term of degree is recited in a claim, it is necessary “to determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” See Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.”). Here, the Specification describes the related art as including “small UASs (e.g., aircrafts up to 25 pounds flying up to 500 ft of the low altitude airspace).” Ex. 1001, 1:50–52. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the Specification that the cited disclosure provides an objective standard for determining the scope of a low-altitude aircraft as one that is designed to fly up to a maximum altitude of about 500 feet.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the following qualifications: [E]ither (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Aerospace engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the aerospace, avionics, telecommunications, or electronic device manufacturing industry, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in any of the above industries. Paper 13, 5 (citing Pet. 21). Patent Owner has not disputed this formulation; thus, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Paper 13, 10–11 n. 8.” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,713,959 - Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00296 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“December 18, 2012, would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with image capture and processing systems or related fields.” Pet. 7 (citing Karam Decl. ¶ 91). Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less and/or different education, but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. According to Petitioner, [t]he prior art also evidences such level of skill.” Id. Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 53–54). For this Decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.10” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Post-institution, Patent Owner invites us to construe limitation 1[f]’s recitation of “mirror tracking mode” and limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.” PO Resp. 9–14. Regarding the latter, Patent Owner explains that “[i]n the District Court Litigation, ‘adaptive transformation mapping’ was construed as ‘continuously variable transformation mapping’ and ‘transformation mapping’ was construed as a ‘selected set of image transformations.’” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2008, 14, 37; Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 25, 27). Patent Owner does not, however, identify any way that those claim constructions affect our analysis of the parties’ patentability disputes. We find it unnecessary in resolving the parties’ patentability disputes to construe expressly limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.”” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,110 - Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Eyesmatch Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00297 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not establish the claimed distance-based variation in the rate of image-processing steps.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Putting aside the controversy over alleged impropriety and sandbagging in connection with the District Court’s Order, which we address infra in connection with Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike, we find the District Court’s “mirror-mimicking” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:46–51, 15:41–47). Petitioner does not dispute that the ’109 patent discloses these aspects of “mirror-mimicking,” or even that the District Court’s claim construction is incorrect. Instead, Petitioner contends that “[t]he Board need not construe ‘mirror mimicking’ [beyond plain meaning] since the prior art expressly discloses mimicking a mirror.” Pet. Reply 6. Further. Petitioner characterizes the claim construction order as “a report and recommendation” by a magistrate judge that “the district court judge has not evaluated or adopted.” Id. at 6 n.2.9 We address infra whether the prior art “expressly” discloses “mirror- mimicking” as construed by the District Court. We, however, disagree with Petitioner that we should not construe this term. Given the controversy over whether Petitioner has argued for a different construction in the District Court, we cannot agree that an explicit construction of “mirror-mimicking” is an unnecessary step toward resolving this controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at 803. We therefore adopt the District Court’s construction for “mirror-” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have combined these references “to reduce distortion and provide a realistic mirror image.” Pet. 14–17; Haram Decl. ¶¶ 110–117. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that by specifically disclosing “flipping” the image, Rosenberg is discouraging or teaching away from performing other transformations to achieve its objective of “replicat[ing] the performance of a standard household mirror.” See PO Resp. 32–33 (Patent Owner asserting lack of motivation to combine the references). A reference may be said to “teach away” “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Galderma Lab'ys, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed. Id. Further, when conducting an obviousness analysis, the Board must consider a prior art reference “not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We are not convinced that the references before us “teach away” from performing the other transformations.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,109 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,109 - Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Eyesmatch Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00856 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations did not teach or suggest varying the rate of the claimed image-processing steps according to user distance.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 62– 63). For this Decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.7” slip op. at 13
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Putting aside the controversy over alleged impropriety and sandbagging in connection with the District Court’s Order, which we address infra in connection with Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike, we find the District Court’s “mirror-mimicking” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:46–51, 15:41–47). Petitioner does not dispute that the ’109 patent discloses these aspects of “mirror-mimicking,” or even that the District Court’s claim construction is incorrect. Instead, Petitioner contends that “[t]he Board need not construe ‘mirror mimicking’ [beyond plain meaning] since the prior art expressly discloses mimicking a mirror.” Pet. Reply 6. Further. Petitioner characterizes the claim construction order as “a report and recommendation” by a magistrate judge that “the district court judge has not evaluated or adopted.” Id. at 6 n.2.9 We address infra whether the prior art “expressly” discloses “mirror- mimicking” as construed by the District Court. We, however, disagree with Petitioner that we should not construe this term. Given the controversy over whether Petitioner has argued for a different construction in the District Court, we cannot agree that an explicit construction of “mirror-mimicking” is an unnecessary step toward resolving this controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at 803. We therefore adopt the District Court’s construction for “mirror-” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have combined these references “to reduce distortion and provide a realistic mirror image.” Pet. 14–17; Haram Decl. ¶¶ 110–117. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that by specifically disclosing “flipping” the image, Rosenberg is discouraging or teaching away from performing other transformations to achieve its objective of “replicat[ing] the performance of a standard household mirror.” See PO Resp. 32–33 (Patent Owner asserting lack of motivation to combine the references). A reference may be said to “teach away” “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Galderma Lab'ys, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed. Id. Further, when conducting an obviousness analysis, the Board must consider a prior art reference “not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We are not convinced that the references before us “teach away” from performing the other transformations.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that step 1(h) is taught or suggested by the references cited by Petitioner or the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Karam. We agree, instead, with Patent Owner’s argument that “a [person of ordinary skill] would regard the disclosures in Rosenberg relating to proximity detection to be in connection with turning on or off various display modes and not in connection with varying the rate of one or more steps that are performed to transform a series of captured images of a user.” PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex.1005, ¶¶ 25, 32, 56, 69, 114). This distinction was explored during the final hearing. Petitioner’s counsel confirmed that in Rosenberg’s mirror mode, the rate of performing the processing steps does not vary: [THE BOARD]: It’s true that when the -- when Rosenberg is acting in the mirror mode, it’s always at the same rate, correct? It’s always performing those three processing steps at the same rate? [COUNSEL]: Correct. Hearing Tr. 34:13–16. We conclude that Rosenberg fails to disclose or suggest step 1(h) for the reasons given by Patent Owner and summarized above. We agree with Patent Owner’s analysis that in Rosenberg, when the mirror is off the processing steps are not performed, and when the mirror is on, the steps are performed “at an invariant rate.” PO Sur-reply 18–19.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,109 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,109 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00262 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Haley and Lai render the claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDenied
“Patent Owner argues that we should discretionarily deny the Petition based on alleged deficiencies in the Petition. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “even if arguments as to a few claims might have been properly presented in the Petition, a decision to institute here would require the Board to address—for the first time and with no Petitioner input—critical claim construction issues affecting nearly every claim” in contravention of the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Prelim. Resp. 34–35. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has violated 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), or that critical and unresolved claim interpretation issues justifying discretionarily denying the Petition exist. We, therefore, decline to deny institution on this basis.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The parties’ briefs do not propose a specific definition of a level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally, Pet., Prelim. Resp. Dr. Vallee, however, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’954 patent: would have either (i) a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering with at least two years of experience in power nailer design; (ii) a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering with at least five years of experience in powered nailer design; or (iii) ten (or more) years of experience in powered nailer design. This experience in powered nailer design would include mechanical design, tool design, manufacturing, mechanics of materials, stress analysis, ergonomics, and human factors. Ex. 1003, ¶ 49. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt and apply Dr. Vallee’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther
“1. Lifter The Petition contends that the “lifter” limitation is a means-plus- function limitation, Pet. 7, which Patent Owner does not dispute, Prelim. Resp. 15–26. Patent Owner argues, however, that Petitioner has “fail[ed] to identify any structure in the ’007 [sic, ’954] Patent to perform the claimed function.” Prelim. Resp. 15. We disagree. Petitioner identifies the structures in the Specification corresponding to the “lifter” as follows: The “lifter member” of the ’954 patent includes a rotatable cam lifter 100 (yellow, below left), with pin 104, 106, and 108 (green) on its face surface that engage protrusions 92 (blue) on the driver member 90 (orange). ’954 patent, 9:25–41, 16:32–46, Fig. 12. The ’954 patent also discloses two-pin variants: lifter members 465 and 480 in Figs. 31, 33. ’954 patent, 32:12–27, 32:45–60. Pet. 15. This identification of corresponding structure is sufficient to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). We also note that at this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner has correctly identified the corresponding structure. The parties may further address the proper interpretation of “lifter” at trial.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,478,954 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00261 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Haley anticipates claims 1, 7, 8, 17, and 20 and Haley with Lai renders the remaining claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Patent Owner argues that we should discretionarily deny the Petition based on alleged deficiencies in the Petition. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “even if arguments as to a few claims might have been properly presented in the Petition, a decision to institute here would require the Board to address—for the first time and with no Petitioner input—critical claim construction issues affecting nearly every claim” in contravention of the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Prelim. Resp. 33–35. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has violated 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), or that critical and unresolved claim interpretation issues justifying discretionarily denying the Petition exist. We, therefore, decline to deny institution on this basis. E. Claims 1, 7, 8, 17, and 20: Anticipation by Haley” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“1. Lifter The Petition contends that the “lifter” limitation is a means-plus- function limitation, Pet. 7, which Patent Owner does not dispute, Prelim. Resp. 10–14. Patent Owner argues, however, that Petitioner has “fail[ed] to identify any structure in the ’007 Patent to perform the claimed function.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We disagree. Petitioner identifies the structures in the Specification corresponding to the “lifter” as follows: The “lifter” (“lifter member”) of the ’007 patent includes a rotatable cam lifter 100 (yellow below left), with pin 104, 106, and 108 (green) on its face surface that engage protrusions 92 (blue) on the driver member 90 (orange). ’007 patent, 9:36–52, 16:39–53, Fig. 12. The ’007 patent also discloses two-pin variants: lifter members 465 and 480 in Figs. 31, 33. ’007 patent, 32:23–38, 32:56–33:4. Pet. 17. This identification of corresponding structure is sufficient to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). We also note that at this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner has correctly identified the corresponding structure. The parties may further address the proper interpretation of “lifter” at trial.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“gas pressure system” recited in the preamble of independent claims 1 and 17. Prelim. Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner, through its comparison of claims 1 and 17 to Haley, improperly implies that the “gas pressure system” can be “limited to a distinct portion of a power tool.” Id. at 23. Patent Owner contends that such an interpretation is improper because the “gas pressure system” must refer to “the entire system,” because the “structure of the claims themselves . . . include[s] . . . every component of the tool.” Id. We disagree. The “gas pressure system” recited in the preambles of claims 1 and 17 expressly refers to a system that is “for a power tool” and thus does not necessarily refer to “the entire” tool or “every component of the tool.” Ex. 1001, 39:6 (claim 1), 40:51 (claim 17). Neither claim 1 nor claim 17 recites, for example, the lifter or driver, which are required elements of an “entire” tool. Id. at 39:6–22 (claim 1), 40:51–67 (claim 17). The lifter and driver are introduced in dependent claims 2 and 18. Id. at 39:23–30 (claim 2), 41:1–9 (claim 18). Still other necessary components of a tool, e.g., a motor and power source, are introduced in dependent claims 5 and 19. Id. at 39:40–42 (claim 5), 41:10–13 (claim 19). By contrast to claims 1 and 17, independent claims 9 and 14 recite a “portable fastener driving tool” and expressly recite many necessary components of such a tool including the driver, lifter, prime mover, and power source. Id. at 39:54 (claim 9), 40:20 (claim 14). Accordingly, we find that the “gas pressure system” of claims 1 and 17 broadly refers to a portion of a power tool rather than the “entire system” or “every component of the tool.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,034,007 - Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00215 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Foster and Hayhurst; the Board did not reach the anticipation and obviousness grounds based on Orsini.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with three years of experience in the area of securing data from unauthorized access or use.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–38). Petitioner also asserts that a “higher level of education may substitute for less experience.” Id. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. Patent Owner submitted the Declaration of Dr. Rubin in support of its Response, and in that Declaration, Dr. Rubin accepted Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 20–21. For the reasons given, we apply the same level of ordinary skill in the art that we did in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 4.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“See Section II.C.3.a.ii supra. Although Dr. Rubin calls Hayhurst’s security benefits “ancillary” (Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 108–109, quoted in PO Resp. 40), this does not align with Hayhurst (see Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 2, 7, 8, 21). For example, Hayhurst describes the security measures in the Technical Field section (id. ¶ 2) and the Summary of the Invention section (id. ¶¶ 7, 8). Hayhurst also discusses piracy deterrence in both the Summary of the Invention section (id. ¶ 8) and the invention’s detailed description (id. ¶ 21). Because Dr. Rubin does not give sufficient weight to Hayhurst’s discussion of piracy deterrence and security, we do not credit Dr. Rubin’s testimony on this issue. See Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 108–109. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Hayhurst is reasonably pertinent to the network-security problem that the inventors were trying to solve. See Reply 5–6.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Neither party explicitly proposed constructions during trial, and we do not see the need for construing any terms in this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“3. Claim 1 a. Analogous Art “To be considered within the prior art for purposes of the obviousness analysis, a reference must be analogous.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Wang Lab. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 864 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland Gmbh v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,452,854 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,452,854
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.