• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,825,294
• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,650,635
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00339 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 23, 28, and 30 are unpatentable over Choi, Labaziewicz, and Yu; claims 1–3, 10–12, 24, 25, 32, and 33 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We decline Patent Owner’s invitation to construe “during a frame” of “independently controlling simultaneous data acquisition with each of the first and second channels during a frame” by importing the extraneous limitations “at some point between the beginning and the end of the exposure interval during which the image sensors capture a single image.” As pointed out by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is unsupported by the language of claim 22 and the ’180 Specification because Specification does not disclose an exposure interval nor suggest “during a frame” is limited to an exposure interval. Patent Owner and its expert Dr. Saber cite only extrinsic evidence (Exs. 2006, 2009) to support its argument that claim 22 should be limited to an “exposure interval during which the image sensors capture a single image.” See PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2020 ¶ 64. Similarly, Patent Owner relies only on extrinsic evidence (e.g., Ex. 2011, 1; Ex. 2022, 1; Ex. 2020 ¶ 66) to limit “during” to “at some point between the beginning and the end.” See id. at 18. When considered in the context of claim 22 and the ’180 Patent Specification which do not limit “during a frame” to an exposure interval, we find that we cannot rely on Patent Owner’s citations to extrinsic evidence to yield a reliable construction for “during a frame.” As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not provide an explicit construction for “during a frame” to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the merits of the patentability challenges. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375. We apply the ordinary and customary meaning for “during a frame.” To the extent that an explicit identification of the ordinary and customary meaning may aid the understanding of our analysis, consistent with the language of claim 22 and the ’180 Patent Specification, we find that the ordinary and customary meaning for “during a frame” is “during the period of time that data for an image frame is acquired.” See Ex. 1001, code (57), 20:6–24, 25:23–35.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” and that “[l]ess experience may be necessary with additional education, and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’180 Patent Specification and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Owner to show that Labaziewicz is not prior art because the ’180 Patent is entitled to the earliest August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”). Patent Owner’s arguments fail to meet this burden of production because, aside from addressing deficiencies of written description support the ’854 Provisional Application provides written description support for all of the limitations of the claimed invention. See PO Resp. 60–64; PO Sur-reply 25–28. Specifically, Patent Owner does not address written description support in the ’854 Provisional Application for “independently controlling simultaneous data acquisition with each of the first and second channels during a frame”––limitation [22.3]––the heart of the parties’ claim construction disputes addressed above in Section II.A. See PO Resp. 60–64; PO Sur-reply 25–27. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not met its burden of production in coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the claimed invention in the ’854 Provisional Application. As a result, the burden of production does not shift back to Petitioner, and, therefore, the ’180 Patent is not entitled to the benefit of the August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Petitioner does not present arguments that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Matsushima to acquire data for images 62A and 62B at the argues that Matsushima renders obvious this limitation. See id. at 21, 23, 30; PO Resp. 33–34 (“[T]he Petition provides no further explanation why Matsushima renders this limitation obvious.”). In the Reply for the first time, Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would understand that Matsushima’s disclosure, including its multi-channel architecture, synchronous control of channels, and capturing two images that are scaled versions of the same scene, renders obvious simultaneous acquisition during a frame. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 49). We do not consider Petitioner’s belated argument because it exceeds the proper scope of a reply. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “respond” “does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Trial Practice Guide at II.I. (December 2025)(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23).10 A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. See id. For example, 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.” Id.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,916,180 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,916,180
• Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 12, 2026 · IPR2025-00070 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, and 9–21 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2 and 8 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted art did not meet their construed limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “III. ANALYSIS LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL A. Petitioner explains the applicable level of skill in the art as follows: As of June 24, 2010, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, as well as two years of industry experience and who would have had a working knowledge of software security analysis, and dynamic malware analysis. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 8 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s explanation of the level of skill in the art. See Ex. 2031 ¶¶ 15–16. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’872 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We begin with the claim language in view of the Specification, which weighs heavily against Patent Owner’s position that we should rewrite “computer system” as narrowly referring to a “computing device.” PO Resp. 24. As Petitioner notes, the ’872 patent’s Specification uses “computer system” to refer to a wide range of equipment, from a component of a computing device, to a whole computing device, to a collection of computing devices. Reply 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:5–8, 11:15–18, 16:50–55). In one example, the Specification refers to “one or more other computer systems (e.g., protected network devices 136).” Ex. 1001, 18:52–53. Thus, the Specification lists “protected network devices 136” as only an example of “other computer systems,” demonstrating that “computer systems” refers to things other than protected network devices. Although Patent Owner may be correct that this passage more than a single computing device,” we find that other disclosures in the ’872 patent do. Specifically, the Specification uses the language “distributed computer system” when referring to numerous components, including “protected network devices” and an “IDS/IPS system.” Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Reply 10. In addition to showing that a “computer system” is not limited to a single computing device, this conveys that a “computer system” according to the ’872 patent can include an IDS/IPS.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Based on our review of the complete record, we find Petitioner’s arguments and evidence to be more persuasive. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s argument and evidence that capturing detailed information like Goel’s activity sources, activity targets, and association was recognized as enhancing threat analysis. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 79); see PO Resp. 55–59; Sur-Reply 15–17. Additionally, contrary to Patent Owner’s suggestion, we find that the Petition does not propose incorporating Goel’s kernel hooks into Capalik’s system. See Pet. 41–46. Patent Owner contends that the Petition’s reference to modifying Capalik by “adding lines of code” suggests implementing the code disclosed in Goel include kernel hooks. Id. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s assertion otherwise, this is an unpersuasive bodily incorporation argument, as the Petition never says an ordinarily skilled artisan would have used the exact lines of code from Goel in Capalik. Rather, the Petition says that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had sufficient skill to implement straightforward code modifications to identify activity sources, targets, and associations: a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that modifying Capalik’s system (e.g., Linux-based) to additionally monitor, identify, and store each individual activity of an attack including “activity sources, activity targets, and associations” would have required straightforward modifications to programs/code instructions, which would have been well-within the skillset of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]. Pet. 46. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not explain how an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Capalik without using kernel hooks. Sur-Reply 17. But Patent Owner does not cite any evidence to counter Dr. Jakobsson’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had the skill to apply Goel’s general teaching of identifying sources, targets, and associations to Capalik’s system. Ex. 1003 ¶ 182. On the whole, the evidence does not support Patent Owner’s position that the combination would have required substantially increased detection risk. Moreover, even if the combination would have somewhat increased detection risk, Petitioner persuades us that an ordinarily skilled artisan still would have had reason to combine the references teachings. Patent Owner’s allegations of increased detection risk do not negate the undisputed evidence that the combination would have provided the advantage of improved threat analysis. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–182). Ultimately, Patent Owner’s that activity logging be undetectable.” PO Resp. 56 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 6). This exaggerates Capalik’s disclosure. Although the cited paragraph suggests that certain systems unfortunately may be detectable by some users, it does not convey that it is a requirement for the system to be categorically undetectable. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 6.8 In sum, Petitioner persuades us by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have been obvious to modify Capalik “to identify and store unauthorized activities including the activity source, activity target, and association of each activity.” Pet. 41–46; PO Resp. 55–59; Reply 20–22; Sur-Reply 15–17.” slip op. at 47

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

    “arguments and evidence, we determine that Patent Owner fails to sufficiently show a nexus between any of its objective indicia evidence and the claimed invention. See Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists”). A showing of sufficient nexus is required to establish that the evidence relied upon traces its basis to a novel element in the claim, not to something in the prior art. Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Objective evidence that results from something that is not “both claimed and novel in the claim” lacks a nexus to the merits of the invention. In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis omitted). Thus, establishing nexus involves a showing that novel elements in the claim, not prior-art elements, account for the objective evidence of nonobviousness. Id. As discussed above, Petitioner shows that Capalik teaches all limitations of claim 1. Petitioner persuades us that none of claim 1’s elements individually nor any combination thereof is novel over Capalik’s disclosure. Accordingly, claim 1 is not novel over Capalik, which disproves Patent Owner’s assertion of nexus. PO Resp. 73–76. Moreover, even if claim 1 were novel, Patent Owner otherwise fails to show nexus for its commercial success, praise, or copying assertions. Patent Owner’s evidence does not show that Petitioner’s commercial product embodies claim 1. For example, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “failed to analyze any meaningful detail regarding” how the Falcon Platform allegedly meets limitation 1(d). Reply 28–29. In particular, Patent Owner has not sufficiently addressed limitation 1(d) with the following argument: “1[D] The Falcon Platform transmitted to other computer systems” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 9,954,872 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,954,872
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2026 · IPR2025-00339 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 23, 28, 30, and 33 are unpatentable over Choi, Labaziewicz, and Yu under § 103; claims 1–3, 10–12, 24, 25, and 32 were not shown unpatentable.

  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 “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” and that “[l]ess experience may be necessary with additional education, and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’180 Patent Specification and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Owner to show that Labaziewicz is not prior art because the ’180 Patent is entitled to the earliest August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”).” slip op. at 23

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

    “We do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments based on retrieval of data from CCD 18A and CCD 18B. Although Matsushima’s CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B are driven synchronously by timing generator 28 (see Ex. 1007 ¶ 27), Matsushima discloses that “accumulated signal charges are retrieved by CCD drive pulses applied by CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B, and are sequentially output from CCD 18A and CCD 18B as voltage signals (analog image signals) corresponding to each signal charge” (see Ex. 1007 ¶ 23) (emphasis added). In other words, regardless of whether CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B are driven synchronously by timing generator 28, Matsushima discloses that voltage signals corresponding to the accumulated 8 Petitioner’s citation erroneously includes ¶¶ 34–36 of Exhibit 1069. CCD 18A and CCD 18B sequentially––not output at the same time or simultaneously.” slip op. at 30

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “argues that Matsushima renders obvious this limitation. See id. at 21, 23, 30; PO Resp. 33–34 (“[T]he Petition provides no further explanation why Matsushima renders this limitation obvious.”). In the Reply for the first time, Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would understand that Matsushima’s disclosure, including its multi-channel architecture, synchronous control of channels, and capturing two images that are scaled versions of the same scene, renders obvious simultaneous acquisition during a frame. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 49). We do not consider Petitioner’s belated argument because it exceeds the proper scope of a reply. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “respond” “does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Trial Practice Guide at II.I. (December 2025)(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23).9 A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. See id. For example, 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.” Id. Petitioner clarifies that the Petition does not argue inherency. See Pet.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,916,180 mixed
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,916,180
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2026 · IPR2025-00222 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–11, 13, and 14 are unpatentable over Yu and Miyazaki; claims 15, 16, and 19 were not shown unpatentable over Matsushima.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “at, and before, the earliest claimed priority date of the ’158 patent . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2–3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” adding that “[l]ess experience may be sufficient with additional education, and likewise, less education may be sufficient with additional work experience.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–18). Patent Owner does not offer a competing definition or dispute Petitioner's articulation. Based on the entire record, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art because that characterization, we find, is consistent with the ’158 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We determine that the claims require a per-channel determination of integration time—that is, an integration time arrived at for each sensor or channel individually—and cannot be satisfied by a single global value merely applied uniformly across the sensors. We do not, however, read the independent claims to require that the per-channel integration times differ from one another.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We adopt the definition clearly and unambiguously set forth in the specification, which was likewise adopted by the Court in the related litigation. See Pet. 7–8, 55; Pet. Reply 1–2 (district court construing the term to mean “the time the image sensor collects and integrates signal from the scene”). The specification states that the integrated photo-charge “is directly related to the time the image sensor collects and integrates signal from the scene,” and that “[t]his is known as integration time.” Ex. 1001, 4:4–7. Accordingly, the ’158 patent demonstrates that the inventors indisputably acted as a lexicographer for the term “integration time.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “We construe “during a frame” to mean the period during which data for a single frame of an image is captured. The limitation is satisfied where the per-channel integration time is effectuated during the frame; it does not require that the integration time be re-determined mid-frame, nor does it require actuation of a “charge integration switch.” The specification’s only use of the phrase confirms this reading: “each camera channel is controlled during a frame under an independent integration time.” Ex. 1001, 3:45–50. Consistent with that usage, the specification describes selecting an integration time for each channel and then integrating the photo-signal “within a single frame of data,” and describes placing the charge-integration switch in a state to allow charge to accumulate for the selected period and then transferring the accumulated charge upon completion of the integration period. Id. at 4:51–54, 11:3–18. We decline Patent Owner’s proposal to require in-frame actuation of a charge-integration switch, for the same reason we decline to import that structure into “integration time.” We also decline to read the phrase to require mid-frame re-determination of the integration time, because the patent’s own embodiment selects an integration time and then integrates charge during the frame under that selected time. Ex. 1001, 4:51–54, 11:3– 18. So construed, “during a frame” is not redundant of the independentclaim limitation: it adds that the per-channel control occurs within a single frame (intrascene), as distinct from adjustment from one frame to the next (interscene).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 9,232,158 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,232,158
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Linda E Horner · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under §112(d) for improper dependent form; claims 1–10 and 12–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony, which is based on the arbitrary shading in Figure 7 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 174), that Schröder teaches or suggests limitation 1[d] because it (1) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reasoning for limitation 1[c], and (2) it is based on an admitted misreading of the embodiment of Schröder’s Figure 5 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 175). As to the first item, Dr. Anthony states that “a POSITA would have been motivated to place a battery in a part of the cavity that is far from a PCB holding other electrical components because that configuration allows for better thermal management.” Ex. 1002, para. 175. The problem with this statement is that Petitioner relies on Schröder’s teaching that inlay 12, i.e., the alleged PCB, could include “other electrical components,” such as a battery to support its position that Schröder suggests placing a battery between the ring halves. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2 (pointing to Dr. Mercier’s depo testimony that inlay 12 with “other components” is inserted between ring halves); id. at 3 (relying on Schröder’s teaching about placing components in depressions on inlay 12). So, Petitioner earlier asserts for the battery limitation 1[c] that Schröder teaches or suggests putting a battery on inlay 12 inside the ring halves, but then for limitation 1[d], Dr. Anthony testifies that a POSITA would place the battery “far” away from the inlay 12 (i.e., the alleged PCB). These positions are inconsistent.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–22). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, for example, sensor system design and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 26. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’178 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner indicates that in the related ITC proceeding involving the ’178 patent, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted three constructions agreed-upon by the parties in that proceeding8 and also construed two disputed terms.9 Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner, however, that no terms need to be construed to decide the issues raised in the Petition. Id. at 27. We reviewed the constructions adopted by the ITC. Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14. 8 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ adopted the parties’ agreed-upon constructions that: (1) the preamble of claim 1 [a finger-worn wearable ring device] is limiting; (2) [positioned/configured to fit] within a “cavity” is [positioned/configured to fit] within a “hollow space”; and (3) [the internal housing component] “coupled with” [the external housing component] is [the internal housing component] “connected with” [the external housing component]. Ex. 2016, 5. 9 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ construed the claims such that: (1) the internal and external housing components of claims 1, 12, and 17 enclose space and do not necessarily exclude potting material; and (2) “circumferential,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18, does not require a closed shape. Ex. 2016, 14, 17. These constructions are not germane to the issues we need to decide to resolve this proceeding. Thus, we agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “Mestas’s batteries, layout, and other components . . . would have to be scaled down 5 to 10 times to be appropriately sized for a finger worn ring.” Resp. 64 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Moreover, we do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony that miniaturization of the battery would have been “trivial to implement.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 242. Dr. Anthony admitted on cross-examination that it would not have been within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art to design a smaller version of Mestas’s battery, and that such a person would need to procure a battery of the appropriate size and specifications for implementation in a finger-ring from a battery manufacturer. Ex. 2021, 315:9–318:9. Yet Dr. Anthony had not ascertained, for purposes of his testimony, whether there was a battery available in 2013 that was appropriate to fit within the inlay space of the modified version of Schröder’s finger-ring that he and Petitioner allege would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at that time. Id. at 321:5–10. Further, we credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to consider the differences in power requirements between Mestas and Schröder or to account for the constraints of such a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 159–160. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’178 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’178 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 161). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 161. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 61–70. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring-type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 71. Based on these findings, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Schröder’s finger-ring to place a curved battery between the internal and external housing components in light of the teachings in Mestas. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claim 3 of the ’178 patent is unpatentable over Schröder and Mestas.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 11,868,178 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,868,178
• Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,110
• Bizlink Technology, Inc. v. Anderson Power Products, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00687 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 7–12 are unpatentable; claim 4 is not shown unpatentable because Winkler does not establish that its insulating barriers press against each other when partially disconnected.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s first argument that a level of ordinary skill in the art that encompasses an individual having experience with electrical circuits but not electrical connectors is not consistent with the technology and descriptions in the ’017 patent. See PO Resp. 7. The field of the invention of the ’017 patent is “electrical connectors, and more particularly, . . . an electrical connector that suppresses arcing if connected or disconnected while current is flowing.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–9. Consistent therewith, the challenged claims are directed to “[a]n electrical connector pair” and recite structural features of the electrical connector pair. Id. at 4:20–56, 5:1–20.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find that the intrinsic evidence supports maintaining our construction in the Institution Decision that “insulating” means “electrically insulating.” See Dec. 11–12. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the insulating barriers would be unable to be configured to “block[] substantially all through-air arcing paths between the first and second electrical contacts,” as claimed, unless they were electrically insulating. See Ex. 1001, 4:36–44. Moreover, as Patent Owner avers, our interpretation of “insulating” as it applies to the first and second insulating barriers should be the same as for the first and second housings. See Digital Biometrics, 149 F.3d at 1345 (“whatever interpretation we assign [to a word used in a claim] should encompass both uses because the same word appearing in the same claim should be interpreted consistently” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Ex. 2001 ¶ 102. Accordingly, we find Dr. Eldering’s testimony persuasive as to this issue and determine that the diagram shows what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably inferred Winkler to disclose when the connectors are partially disconnected. Compare Ex. 1004, Fig. 2, with Pet. 33; see also Ex. 1004, 3:14–27 (discussing the process by which the connectors are engaged with each other).” slip op. at 44

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

    “Id. at 3:27–37 (emphasis added). These wall portions 58 are located between the distal ends of the terminals and where Petitioner proposes to add a printed circuit board or wiring board to Winkler. See id. at Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46 (diagrams showing Winkler as modified to have a printed circuit board or wiring board). As such, movement of Winkler’s terminals appears to be mostly limited to within their respective receiving pockets. Given the above teachings, we fail to see how Petitioner’s proposed modification would have meaningfully interfered with the degree of freedom of movement required by Winkler’s terminals. Notably, Mr. Locati’s testimony regarding this issue is conclusory. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 120. Because movement of Winkler’s terminals occurs primarily in the receiving pockets, we also do not discern how the solder joint of Petitioner’s proposed modification would experience undue stress or risk breaking due to that movement. See Ex. 1004, 1:47–55, 3:14–37, Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46. This is particularly true in view of Winkler’s teaching that each cylindrical end portion may be soldered to a cable. See id. at 2:6–10; see also Pet. 43 (arguing that Winkler teaches soldering to a cable but not specifically to a printed circuit or wiring board). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Winkler and Handbook.” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 8,808,017 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,808,017
• Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00083 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Socwell, Magid, and Sclater; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Prior to institution, Patent Owner argued that we should dismiss the Petition because it identifies the Petitioner as the California Corporation and not the Delaware Corporation. Paper 6, 23–24 (Preliminary Response); Paper 9, 1 (Preliminary Sur-Reply); Paper 12 (Conference Call Transcript); Paper 18 (Request for Director Review). In our Decision on Institution, we found Patent Owner’s argument, as applied to the facts of this proceeding, to be unpersuasive and corrected the caption to correctly reference Petitioner as the California Corporation, essentially replacing the “Inc.” with “LLC” in Petitioner’s name. Paper 13, 14–17; see also Paper 21 (Decision Denying Director Review).” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenOther

    “We find Dr. Giachetti’s testimony, alone, insufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSA, given Tollkien and Sclater, would have been motivated to look to one-way sprag-type clutches to solve the problem of unexpected forward motion of the running belt of a treadmill. Without a reference, like Magid, teaching that it was known to use a one-way clutch mechanism on a treadmill to prevent unexpected forward motion, we are persuaded by Patent Owner that Petitioner’s combination is impermissibly based in hindsight. See PO Resp. 42–47. After considering Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable over Tollkien and Sclater.” slip op. at 42

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “Declaration of Robert Giachetti, Ph.D. P.E) under FRE 401–402. Mot. 4 (citing FRE 401–402 in the heading). Patent Owner’s Motion, however, includes no substantive arguments directed to whether Giachetti Declaration is relevant admissible evidence or irrelevant inadmissible evidence. Mot. 4– 7. In its Reply, Patent Owner states: “While the Motion to Exclude does not expressly detail Exhibit 1036’s lack of relevance under FRE 401–402, the irrelevance is plain. Petitioner’s provision of new arguments in Reply, which is not allowed, renders such arguments irrelevant.” PO Reply to Mot., 1, n.1. Patent Owners argument is unpersuasive because it is a mere assertion without adequate explanation. The party moving to exclude evidence bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that the material sought to be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). Patent Owner’s mere assertion does not meet Patent Owner’s burden to show that Exhibit 1036 is irrelevant inadmissible evidence.” slip op. at 52

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “8 Patent Owner argues that we should not consider Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1036 and 1051 because the Reply and Exhibits relate to new arguments which should have been made in the Petition. PO Sur-Reply 4–5. We do not agree. Petitioner may rely upon Exhibits 1036 and 1051 to response to arguments raised in the Patent Owner’s Response. See PO Resp. (a ); Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronics, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, 1380–1382 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“we have continued to recognize that a petitioner is entitled under the APA to respond to new claim construction arguments made by a patent owner.”)” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 11,465,005 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,465,005

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.