• Google LLC v. Brodti Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2026 · IPR2025-00472 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over Nicholas, Laidlaw, Mayadas, and Error, with Yasnovsky added for claims 7, 8, 16, 17, and 20.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art are substantially similar. In light of the record before us, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’898 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Patent Owner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’898 patent and the prior art, particularly experience pertaining to Internet/web interfaces and web-based media. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Neither party argues, nor do we determine, that the outcome of our Decision depends on which party’s definition is selected.” slip op. at 11

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

    “includ[e] a server and one or more webpages that may be provided by the server for display in a web browser.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 13–15). Petitioner argues, and we agree, that the Specification strongly supports this construction (requiring a server and webpage(s)) by describing a “website” as synonymous with a server computer system: “The WWW [(World Wide Web)] service allows a server computer system (i.e., Web server or Web site) to send graphical Web pages or screens of information such as the advertising materials to a remote client computer system 10.” Ex. 1001, 3:66–4:2 (emphases added); see id. at Fig. 1 (depicting a service engine and webpages as a web server, i.e., website), 3:15–18 (describing Figure 1 as showing “a server of the website” (emphasis added)); Pet. Reply 5; see Ex. 1026 ¶ 13. Petitioner also submits a supporting (and persuasive) contemporaneous technical dictionary definition of “website,” which highlights the distinction between a lay person’s understanding of the term versus that of the relevant artisan. Pet. Reply 5–6. This definition explains that the “common but technically inaccurate” usage of “website” is to mean “Web page,” but the technically correct usage of “website” is to mean “one or more computers that are associated with a fully qualified domain name and make content available on the Web.” Id. (citing Ex. 1028, 402). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Crovella, likewise testifies that “[a] website cannot exist without the server or computer that provides its webpages.” Ex. 1026 ¶ 15; see Ex. 1027, 36:8–20 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Myler, agreeing that “it has to be some machine somewhere that’s providing the webpages for the website.”). The limitations of claim 1 also support Petitioner’s position that “website” includes a server and webpage(s). Reply 5. For example, claim 1 recites advertising material for “populat[ing] on one or more websites,” and selected “advertising buy options comprise at least one website of the respective websites.” Ex. 1001, 10:29–51 (emphases added). We find these limitations make the most technical sense where “website” implicates an Internet domain or domain name, such as brodti.com, which itself is a computer system (server) and associated webpage(s) reached via that domain name. This interpretation aligns with testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Myler, in which he states that a “website” describes “a group of webpages at a particular domain (e.g., www.espn.com, www.espn.com/nba, www.espn.com/nfl, www.espn.com/nhl).” Ex. 2009 ¶ 68 (emphasis in italics added). In other words, brodti.com and espn.com are two different websites, with each website having one or more webpages (e.g., www.espn.com/nba, www.espn.com/nfl), and such websites include a server giving life to such webpage(s). slip op. at 15

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

    “Patent Owner proffers that placing advertising material “within” web property content means “inserting” an advertisement into particular content. PO Resp. 12. Petitioner responds that “placing . . . within” means what it says, and notes that “[t]he words ‘insert’ or ‘inserting’ appear nowhere in the [Specification].” Pet. Reply 7–8; see id. at 8 (Petitioner arguing that Patent Owner’s expert “admitted that the claim does not specify details regarding how advertising material needs to be placed within web property content.” (citing Ex. 1027, 29:18–24)). Patent Owner replies that the relevant artisan allegedly “would have understood ‘placing . . . within’ to mean ‘inserting into,’” but then submits that whether “placing . . . within” versus “inserting into” is used does not matter because Petitioner allegedly has not demonstrated the obviousness of either. PO Sur-reply 17. As Petitioner observes, “[i]t is unclear if Patent Owner intended any difference in meaning between these two terms.” Pet. Reply 8. Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we determine that no further construction of this limitation is needed, and “placing A within B” means what it says—“placing A within B.”” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “determining” of impression validity feature of limitation 1[h] by disclosing “a ‘single-pixel’ image technique for determining that an impression is valid,” e.g., by using “cookies.” Pet. 42–45. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Crovella, testifies that this “single-pixel” impression tracking technique would have been a “well-known” technique to the relevant artisan, and as described by Error, operates as follows: [A] URL link for a single pixel (or transparent) image file is embedded onto a webpage that is delivered to a web browser. The image is not meant to be viewed and will likely not be visible to the user. After the user’s browser receives the webpage, it uses the embedded URL link to request the single-pixel image from a server. The receipt of that request by the server provides an indication that the user’s web browser actually received and presented the web page to the user. Ex. 1002 ¶ 133 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:36–54, 2:6–21); see id. at ¶¶ 132–139. slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 11,416,898 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,416,898
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2022-01199 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1, 24, and 25 unpatentable as obvious over Buruganahalli; the copying evidence did not outweigh the strong obviousness showing.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Scope on Remand On remand, the panel here will not address issues outside the scope of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., 814 F. App’x 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board is bound by the terms of a mandate issued by an appellate court. Aydin Corp. v. Widnall, 121 F.3d 726, 1997 WL 413329, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ‘Unless remanded by [an appellate] court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.’ Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”). The sole issue on remand is whether “the evidence of copying” is sufficient to overcome the obviousness ground of unpatentability over Buruganahalli. Centripetal Networks, 19–20. We restate portions of the former Final Written Decision, as an aid to the reader, but substantially incorporate the analysis of the prior Decision below. C.” slip op. at 4

  • Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied

    “not object to a new panel of APJs hearing this case if remanded.” Id. at 20. As such, Patent Owner requested Director Review (Paper 74), asking that the Director “de-institute,” based on an abuse of discretion. The Director (Paper 75) denied the request and directed the Board to assign a new panel on remand (see Papers 76, 77). B.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in The Art We adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the prior Decision. See Decision 25. F.” slip op. at 13

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

    “This argument is unpersuasive because Buruganahalli uses rules/policies to filter encrypted packets by correlating them with handshaking packets that have unencrypted data, in the same way that is done in the ‘856 Patent. The only “filtering step” in the patent that “use[s] rules to filter encrypted packets without decryption” (PO Resp. 20) is the hello message approach used, for example, at steps 19 and 23 (see id.), which is clearly disclosed in Buruganahalli.7 As explained above, the ‘856 Patent does not describe applying rules to encrypted packets. Instead, it describes (a) filtering encrypted packets by correlating them with unencrypted data in other packets and (b) by decrypting the packets and applying the rules that are recited in the claims to unencrypted data. As also explained above, the amendment added the rules of step 22, which are applied to decrypted data, to a claim that was drafted to cover filtering of encrypted packets. However, among the criteria used in the filtering performed at step 22 is a “uniform resource identifier (URI),” which, we conclude, covers Buruganahalli’s “domain name.” Thus, despite the error made during prosecution, the claims that issued cover Buruganahalli’s method of determining that a session should be filtered based on a domain name in unencrypted handshake data.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,917,856
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2022-00182 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under § 103 over Buruganahalli; the evidence of copying does not outweigh the strong obviousness showing.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Scope on Remand On remand, the panel here will not address issues outside the scope of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., 814 F. App’x 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board is bound by the terms of a mandate issued by an appellate court. Aydin Corp. v. Widnall, 121 F.3d 726, 1997 WL 413329, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ‘Unless remanded by [an appellate] court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.’ Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”). The sole issue on remand is whether “the evidence of copying” is sufficient to overcome the obviousness ground of unpatentability over Buruganahalli. Centripetal Networks, 19–20. We restate portions of the former Final Written Decision, as an aid to the reader, but substantially incorporate the analysis of the prior Decision below. C.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentable

    “given to the Eastern District of Virginia court’s opinion because it was later vacated. The district court considered all of the Read factors (applying Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826-827 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), of which only the first factor is directed to deliberate copying, although factors 2 and 9 bear indirectly on the issue of copying. The district court determined that “[t]he fact that Cisco released products with Centripetal’s functionality within a year of these meetings goes beyond mere coincidence. Therefore, the fact that Cisco’s system mirrors the functionality of the Centripetal patents is compelling evidence that damages should be enhanced for copying.” Ex. 1027, 157. Without more, it is difficult to evaluate the processes that the district court employed to reach its determination. As the Federal Circuit instructed, we need “not [] go searching throughout the entire litigation record to find the evidence of copying, but [we have] an obligation to consider the specific evidence that was put before” us. Centripetal Networks, 19. We continue to determine that the vacated finding of the district court should be provided little weight, especially in view of the strong case of obviousness discussed above. Examination of Aaron Striegel We also do not find the Aaron Striegel’s testimony to be particularly persuasive. The testimony provides statements such as “I found evidence that it could be plausible,” “[s]o we can see the timeline is very plausible,” and “I found it very plausible that indeed that this technology could have made its way into these respective accused products.” Ex. 1029, 31:12–32:3. This testimony suggests the possibility of copying but does not demonstrate actual evidence of copying. At most, this testimony indicates that further consideration of the underlying evidence is warranted, but does little to support an ultimate finding of copying. Again, even taking this testimony as evidence of copying, it still must stand up against the strong case of obviousness discussed above.” slip op. at 40

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

    “The District Court did not provide an element-by-element analysis of how the claims of the ‘856 Patent cover this description. See Ex. 1027, 41. However, from the description, we understand the Court to have concluded that the system receives rules, identifies a set of packets as part of a flow using the NetFlow logs, “determines” that encrypted packets in the flow match known malicious signatures based on unencrypted data in other packets (e.g., data in the SNI), and then filters the flow based in a URI (e.g., that from the SNI), routing it to the null interface. The Court does not describe how the system “determines” that encrypted packets match known malicious signatures based on information in unencrypted packets, but we assume that is done as in the ‘856 Patent, by correlation, i.e., an encrypted packet is “determined” to match a threat indicator if it is in the same flow as a packet with unencrypted information that matches the threat indicator.10 With that understanding, we conclude that the allegedly infringing system operates, as least at the level described in the court’s decision, in the same way Buruganahalli’s system operates, filtering encrypted packets due to their presence in a flow that includes packets with unencrypted data, such as in a handshaking packet. It follows that Patent Owner is unable to establish a nexus, because “[w]here the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1330” slip op. at 38

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersDecided for petitioner

    “need and industry recognition for the technology claimed in the ‘856 Patent because it describes the problem of detecting threats in encrypted traffic as ‘unsolvable.’” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 1027, 64). Given that this is a press release by a company announcing that company’s new commercial product, however, we 8 The concurrence reevaluates Patent Owner’s evidence of industry praise and nexus, but we deem such considerations outside the remit of the Federal Circuit’s remand. are reluctant to give the “unsolvable” characterization much weight, as it may amount to puffery. But beyond that, it appears that the problem identified as “unsolvable” in the press release––“detect[ing] known attack signatures even in encrypted traffic”––had, in fact, already been solved in Buruganahalli, using the very same hello message, flow correlation, and man-in-the-middle techniques described in the ‘856 Patent. We thus cannot say that the press release identifies a long-felt need that was actually unsolved. See ZUP, 896 F.3d at 1374 (explaining that “[w]here the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention are . . . minimal . . . it cannot be said that any long-felt need was unsolved”) (quoting Geo. M. Martin Co. v. All. Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (first alteration in original)).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,917,856
• Motorola Mobility LLC / Google LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 15, 2026 · IPR2025-00038 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10–13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Chin; the Board did not find them anticipated by Chin or Whitehorn.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . (‘POSITA’) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field plus at least two years of work or post-graduate experience in image capture, image processing, image display, user interfaces, or a related field. Additional education could offset a lesser amount of experience and vice versa. Pet. 16. Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s definition. See PO Resp. 25. We adopt Petitioner’s undisputed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’842 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that claim construction is unnecessary. As demonstrated in the analysis provided below addressing this claim limitation in view of the prior art, we need not explicitly construe “wherein in each image capture mode a display on the first or second screen is different.” See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Similarly, we need not construe any other claim terms or phrases to resolve the controversy between the parties.” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments relying on Kennametal are belated. A “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)6 at II.I. Thus, we need not consider Petitioner’s belated argument raised for the first time in the Reply. In any event, we agree that Kenneametal is inapplicable for the purpose of supplying a claim limitation missing from Chin’s disclosure. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1270, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Kennametal does not stand for the proposition that a reference missing a limitation can anticipate a claim if a skilled artisan viewing the reference would ‘at once envisage’ the missing limitation.”). Chin’s disclosure is silent regarding what is or is not displayed on first display 51 when images are displayed on second display 52 in self-photographing mode, and similarly silent regarding what is or is not 6 Available at www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trial-practice-guide. displayed on second display 52 when images are displayed on first display 51 in outward-facing mode. See generally Ex. 1004.” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the theory of inherency was not raised in the Petition and is therefore waived. Compare Pet. 29–33, with Pet. Reply 11–15. In any event, we also agree that Petitioner’s speculation regarding the disclosure of Chin is insufficient to support a theory of inherency. See Pet. Reply 11–15. As explained above, Chin’s disclosure is silent regarding what is or is not displayed on first display 51 when images are displayed on second display 52 in self-photographing mode, and similarly silent regarding what is or is not displayed on second display 52 when images are displayed on first display 51 in outward-facing mode. See Ex. 1004. Speculation regarding the possibilities and probabilities of what is displayed on first display 51 in self-photographing mode, and what is displayed on second display 52 in outward-facing mode are insufficient to establish inherency. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d at 745. For the forgoing reasons and based on the entire record developed during trial, the preponderance of the evidence does not support Petitioner’s showing that Chin discloses “wherein in each image capture mode a display on the first or second screen is different.” Accordingly, based on the entire record developed during trial the preponderance of the evidence does not support Petitioner’s showing that Chin anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,836,842 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,836,842
• Motorola Mobility LLC / Google LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2026 · IPR2025-00040 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable: claims 1–4 and 6–9 as anticipated or obvious over the asserted references, and claim 5 as obvious over Yook or Yook in view of Purcell.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because the Petition presents argument and evidence that substantively demonstrates, with clarity and particularity, how and why each reference discloses, teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious the displaying element recited in limitation 1[B]. We agree with Petitioner that “Patent Owner neglects to address the actual substance of the Petition, which clearly addresses this limitation with respect to each reference.” Reply 1–2. The Petition addresses in detail how each asserted reference discloses displaying two applications on two separate displays in accordance with the displaying element, by presenting multiple annotated figures from Yook, Lee, Aguilar, and Purcell. Pet. 27–30, 47–50, 62–63, 77–78. The Petition also cites and quotes the accompanying descriptions for the annotated figures from each prior art reference as well as explanatory expert opinion testimony from Dr. Rodriguez. Id. (citing Rodriguez Decl. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–74, 119–122, 149–150, 182–183; Yook Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47, 51, 58, 96–101, Figs. 4b, 4d, 5; Lee Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 48–53, Figs. 4, 6, 9, 10; Aguilar Ex. 1006, 7:1–7, Figs. 5–5d; Purcell Ex. 1007 ¶ 16, Fig. 2). We provide detailed examples below of how the Petition maps Yook and Lee onto the displaying element of limitation 1[B] in compliance with the particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Although we do not provide detailed examples directed to Aguilar and Purcell, we find the Petition maps Aguilar and Purcell onto the displaying element of limitation 1[B] in compliance with the particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “Instead, Patent Owner chose to raise an entirely new theory of patentability. Sur-Reply 3–13; Tr. 28:8–20. Patent Owner’s new theory is based on a claim construction that construes claim 1 of the ’756 patent as “recit[ing] a specific order of steps that must be performed in the order written.” Id. at 3–4. “Because of this order, the [displaying element] must occur after both (two) ‘selecting’ steps,” and Patent Owner contends none of the prior art references asserted in the Petition “meets the order required by claim 1.” Id. at 4. We will not consider Patent Owner’s new theory of patentability raised for the first time in its Sur-Reply. See Apple Inc. v. e-Watch, Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, 44 (PTAB May 6, 2016) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean embark in a new direction with a new approach”); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for the first time in the reply brief, which could have been raised in the opening brief, is waived). Patent Owner should have raised its “specific order of steps” argument in the Response. By failing to do so, Patent Owner has waived the argument. Id.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Third, we are further persuaded by Dr. Surati’s testimony that the wave shape visual indicator depicted in Figures 10A–C of the ’756 patent indicates that a user can do something, but not necessarily what that something is (e.g., minimizing or maximizing). Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1012, 200:1–6). It is telling that Dr. Surati testified that only through repeated use and exposure would a user recognize a relationship between a wave shape and the functions of maximizing or minimizing an application. Id. (citing Ex. 1012, 197:13–199:22). We are also persuaded by Dr. Rodriguez’s testimony regarding the teachings of Yook: Yook therefore teaches giving users the ability to transition a split-screen application back into full screen mode. Further, a POSITA would have understood that this ability would undoubtedly be implemented in the form of a visual indicator, which, from the 2000s to today, is the industry’s universal method of alerting a user to an accessible function. . . . Ex. 1003 ¶ 107 (emphasis added); For claim 5, Yook discloses many different types of “icons” that are used to receive user gesture inputs. See, e.g., Figs. 1, 4e, 5a, 5c, 5d, 6, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Examples of these icons are displayed below: Id. ¶ 108; and A POSITA would have understood that Yook’s icons can have a wave shape because the shape taken by a visual indicator, or icon, is merely a matter of common and routine design choice. Indeed, the shape of an icon does not affect its function or how a gesture input is received. Id. ¶ 109 (emphasis added). In short, we are persuaded Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that a displayed visual indicator that “has a wave shape” is a design choice not affecting the function of the visual indicator, and a visual indicator that “has a wave shape” would have been an obvious design choice to a POSITA in view of Yook.” slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. We adopt the parties’ agreed level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the description in the ’756 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 9,134,756 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,134,756
• Apple Inc. v. DH International Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2026 · IPR2025-00172 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Suga and Gorsuch; the Board denied Patent Owner’s motion to exclude.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner also asserts prejudice for “not knowing” which Suga Exhibit “the Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert is relying on (see Exhibit 1021 and 1022),” without further explanation. Mot. Reply 6. Exhibit 1022 is a dictionary definition of “node.” How this relates to Patent Owner’s argument of prejudice is not explained. Id. at 5–6. The Board perceives no difficulty following Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, which cite Suga Exhibit 1005, including the testimony of Dr. Buehrer regarding the English language translation of Suga, which is identical in Exhibits 1005 and 1017. Patent Owner, moreover, opted not to depose Dr. Buehrer, did not file a deposition transcript of Dr. Buehrer in this proceeding, and does not allege any difference or substantive deficiency in the English language translation in Suga Exhibits 1005 and 1017, which are identical. We fail to see any prejudice to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 84

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

    “d. Conclusion for Claim 1 For the reasons given above, we determine the Petition establishes by” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 9,022,294 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,022,294
• Google LLC / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2026 · IPR2025-00059 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–9, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Yook, Bauer, and Lee.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–9, 15, 16, 19, and 20 of the ’135 patent. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–9, 15, 16, 19, and 20 of the ’135 patent on all presented challenges. Paper 8 (“Inst. Dec.”), 2, 23.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 8

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

    “D. Asserted Obviousness Based on Yook 1. Yook (Ex. 1005) Yook relates particularly “to a method and mobile terminal that can divide the screen into individual divided screen areas and simultaneously present user functions on the individual divided screen areas.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 3. Reproduced below are Figures 1 and 2 of Yook. Figure 1 “illustrates an external appearance of a mobile terminal,” and Figure 2 “is an illustration of an exemplary block diagram of the mobile terminal” shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 11, 12. Mobile terminal 100 includes touch screen 140, control unit 160, and storage unit 150, as well as radio frequency unit 110, input unit 120, and audio processing unit 130. Id. ¶ 25. Touch screen 140 includes display unit 141 and touch panel 143 that can be arranged in front of display unit 141. Id. ¶ 30. Mobile unit 100 can activate a screen management program stored in storage unit 150 “in response to a user request,” and control unit 160 can cause display unit 141 to divide the screen into several divided screen areas and output functional view areas related to user functions to the individual divided screen areas. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26, 31, 37. Also, “[t]he screen area management program can be loaded on the control unit 160 in response to program may include:” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,141,135 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,141,135
• Google LLC / Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Ericsson ABAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00003 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, 12, 14, and 16–20 are unpatentable under § 103; the Board denied Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “[W]ould have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and 2–3 years of practical engineering experience relating to information security systems that employ cryptographic keys to encrypt/decrypt digital data. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s expert regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. RMTA 19. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Villasenor, notes that “obviousness must be viewed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the field of information security using cryptographic keys for encryption and decryption of digital data, and my opinions are rendered on the basis of the definition of the ordinary artisan set forth in the Petition in view of that further clarification.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 19. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’178 patent specification. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “In reply, Patent Owner substantially repeats its arguments against Petitioner’s reliance on Peterka for the claim 1 content encryption key identifiers requirements. Reply RMTA 8–9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 121; Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 89, 93–95); see RMTA 14–15. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed in Section III.D.2.e)(2) above.” slip op. at 65

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

    “Patent Owner argues that there was no motivation to combine Peterka with Suzuki because Petitioner has argued that “Peterka can already identify content keys by using the allegedly unique sequence numbers or time stamps assigned to each message carrying a single content key.” PO Resp. 41–42 (citing Pet. 25). Patent Owner also challenges motivation to combine Suzuki because it “is not directed to a pay-by-time, pay-per-view, or subscription distribution model, in which a content key grants access to content that different clients must individually decide to purchase in discrete units or increments.” Id. at 36–37. Petitioner responds that, because Peterka disclosed alternative embodiments that did not use sequence numbers or time stamps to identify EMM/ECM messages, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated specifically assign identifications to individual keys as taught in Suzuki. Reply 22 (citing Pet. 26). Petitioner also argues that whether Suzuki was directed to unpurchased content was irrelevant, because Suzuki is cited to show multiple key responses were conventional. Id. at 19–20. Patent Owner does not otherwise specifically address the issue of motivation to combine Peterka, Suzuki, and Bocharov. See generally PO Resp. Nonetheless the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. We find, based on the record, that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Peterka, Suzuki, and Bocharov as proffered by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 45

  • ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Petitioner that the substitute claims are broadening. Because the amended wording only requires the key request to be made “in response to detecting” the boundary, rather than “ahead of” the boundary, the request can occur before or after the boundary. This is not a fanciful or unlikely possibility — such delayed requests are specifically contemplated by the ’178 patent: [I]f the packager 104 is unable to obtain a new content encryption key from the WFM 102 prior to the expiration of the current content encryption key, the packager 104 will continue to use the current content encryption key until such time as it is able to obtain a new key from the WFM 102. Ex. 1001, 6:32–37. It should be noted that the fixed period duration for key rotation may be viewed as a "target" period, as the packager 104 may not expire a key on the exact boundary. Ex. 1001, 8:9–11. The key expiration time from the WFM 102 may be viewed as a "suggested" expiration time, as the packager 104 may not be able to expire the key at the exact specified time.” slip op. at 56

  Patent outcomesUS 9,313,178 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,313,178
• Google LLC / Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Ericsson ABAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00004 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 11–17, and 19 are unpatentable under §103; the revised motion to amend proposing substitute claims 21–36 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Board first must determine whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). Accordingly, a patent owner must provide a claim listing reproducing each proposed substitute claim, and must make an initial showing to demonstrate the following: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure (and any earlier filed disclosure for which the benefit of the earlier filing date is sought); (3) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; and (4) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” slip op. at 60

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions regarding the” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelOther

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 11,122,313 unpatentable
  Nonecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,122,313
• Google LLC v. DH International Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2024-01322 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Mooney; the Board also found Mooney combined with Lee renders the disputed limitations obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’294 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in design, development, and/or testing of network-enabled consumer devices, and familiarity with payment cards, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 2 (citing Lipoff Decl. Ex. 1003 ¶ 57). “Patent Owner agrees with the Petitioner on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Resp. 4. Patent Owner adds that a POSITA would have had “at least three years of relevant industry or research experience in wireless communication between devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 26–29). Mr. Zaheer testifies that a POSITA “would” slip op. at 9

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

    “The claim language and specification define and describe an “activation cue” in functional terms: a data communication from an external source is received by the cell phone and recognized as an activation cue if it causes the switching element to be assigned its first (activated) state. Ex. 1001, 9:28–31, 9:42–46, 10:14–16, 13:55–60, 14:53–59, 15:4–6, 19:20–26. Patent Owner agrees that “upon an activation cue being received by portable electronic device 10, switching element 44b switches to its activated state.” Resp. 19 (quoting Ex. 1001, 10:14–16). The activation cue may be a predetermined bit sequence, a predetermined contactless data transmission, continuously emitted, pulsed, or punctual, but these are unclaimed non-limiting embodiments of the preferred form of data transmission. Id. at 9:25–26 (“for example a predetermined bit sequence”), 11:20–22 (“One example . . . emit an activation cue in the form of a predetermined contactless data transmission”), 14:65–15:3 (continuously emitted, pulsed or punctual cue). We will not read such preferred embodiments from the specification into claim language that is not so limited. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (care should be taken “not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim”); see also In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification”); see also IQRIS Techns. LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., 2025 WL 727717, *4 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“It is the claims, not the preferred embodiments, that” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “operatively linked to said electronic circuit” under 35 U.S.C. Section 112, sixth paragraph or not, the result is the same. We note there is no presumption of applying means-plus-function analysis to the switching element, because the limitation does not use the words “means for” that would mandate such claim construction treatment, and “switching” may invoke structure as well as function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349–1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). Regardless, we look to the meaning of the claim phrase at issue in view of the specification. We determine that the ’294 patent provides a clear, concise meaning for the switching element upon which both parties rely for construction. Patent Owner’s express agreement with Petitioner, that the claimed switching element is described in the ’294 patent as “any type of device allowing data to be conveyed according to alternate data conveyance operations in response to an activation cue being received by transceiver 18 or not,’” is particularly telling because it is not consistent with Patent Owner’s argument that the switching element means “switching of the data.” Resp. 7, 31 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:28–318). The claim language does not recite, and the specification does not describe, the switching element as a device that switches the data. Therefore, we determine the claimed “data conveyance switching element” means any type of switching device that allows data to be 8 We presume Patent Owner’s citation to “Exh. 2001, 9:28-31” on page 7 was intended to be a citation to the ’294 patent (Ex. 1001), as cited on page 31. whether or not an “activation cue” is received by the cell phone “cue receiver.”” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “[external] data exchange device” as a device with a data transceiver coupled to a circuit that carries out the function of exchanging data. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:14–17, 4:7–14, 9:3–6; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–68). As above, whether we construe the “[external] data exchange device” under 35 U.S.C. Section 112, sixth paragraph or not, the result is the same. Patent Owner, quoting the description of a data exchange device in the ’294 patent, contends that a “[external] data exchange device” “can be any sort of data exchange device comprising an electronic circuit (not shown) therein and a data transceiver 9a.” Resp. 8 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:4–6). Patent Owner also responds to the Petition by clarifying that “[a]n external data exchange device is not a transceiver but a device with a transceiver.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 48). Petitioner argues in reply that Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s mappings of Mooney’s “cordless telephone base unit” or “cellular network infrastructure” to the claimed data exchange devices, such that no construction is necessary to resolve the dispute. Reply 5 (citing Resp. 16–37; Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Limitations [1.c] and [1.d] recite “a first [second] data transceiver operatively linked to said electronic circuit [in the cell phone],” both of which are defined functionally as “for exchanging data between said electronic circuit [in the cell phone] and a first [second] external data exchange device over a first [second] communication link.” Nothing in the the other independent claims, further limits the form or function of the “[external] data exchange device,” although a device external to the cell phone may invoke additional structure. We determine the plain meaning of “[external] data exchange device” as claimed and described in the ’294 patent governs: any [external] device that comprises an electronic circuit and data transceiver for exchanging data with the electronic circuit in the cell phone over a communication link. slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,022,294 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,022,294

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.