- Google LLC / Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Ericsson ABAll claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,313,178 - Google LLC / Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Ericsson ABAll claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableNonecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,122,313 - Charter Communications, Inc. / Plume Design, Inc. v. Adaptive Spectrum And Signal Alignment, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00087 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–20, exercising § 314(a) discretion based on the Fintiv factors.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Accordingly, based on the current record, we disagree with Petitioner that Factor 2 is neutral. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Factor 2 favors discretionary denial.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,477,108 - PTAB · Apr 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01379 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claim 20, finding that the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial under § 314(a).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“(which we address in more detail below) turns on the determination of the meaning of the claim term “periodically.” We note that the District Court has construed the term “periodically monitor” to mean “monitor at regular intervals of time.” See Sec. II.C below. Given this construction, which we preliminarily agree with at this stage, we cannot agree with Petitioner that the Petition presents “a strong case for obviousness.” Thus, we find that Factor 6 weighs in favor of exercising discretionary denial.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“periodically” as it is used in claim 20, with Petitioner arguing that “periodically’ means “repeated . . . over time” and Patent Owner arguing that “periodically” means “at fixed intervals.” See Pet. 25; Prelim. Resp. 8. Our preliminary determination of the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “periodically” as it is used in claim 20 substantially impacts our view of the merits in this case as this issue is the principal one raised by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 5–22. slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears consistent with the subject matter of the ’996 patent. This is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Martin. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–56. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision, with the exception of the qualifier “at least,” to keep the description from being vague and extending to a level reflecting that of an expert. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 18
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,809,996 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01191 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–28 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Wiz would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“After Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response, however, Petitioner filed a stipulation consistent with the stipulation filed in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (Decision Granting Institution) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”). Ex. 1107. On June 21, 2022, the Director issued guidance (“Director Guidance”) in the form of a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors.6 Notably, the Director stated that the Board “will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board].” Director Guidance, 3. With this guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under Fintiv because Petitioner filed a Sotera stipulation. Ex. 1107.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). Patent Owner does not dispute that Veselov is the only reference that serves as the basis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds that was considered during prosecution of the ’326 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 63 (citing Ex. 1004, 109, 138). The Examiner, however, did not meaningfully address Veselov during prosecution of the ’326 patent. For example, the Examiner did not apply the teachings of Veselov to teach or suggest the limitations of the originally presented claims of the ’326 patent. See id.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’326 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all challenged claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner offers essentially the same assessment of the level of skill in the art as Petitioner, arguing the following: a [POSITA] as of the ’326 patent’s earliest priority date (January 28, 2019), would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and two years of industry experience or academic research experience in cyber security and virtualization, including cloud computing cybersecurity. Additional education can compensate for less experience and vice-versa. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 1–12, 19–26). We do not discern a material difference between the assessments of the level of skill in the art advanced by either party, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its own assessment. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment. Petitioner’s assessment is supported by the testimony of Dr. Stavrou and it is consistent with the ’326 patent and the asserted prior art. We note, however, that our obviousness analysis would be the same under each party’s assessment.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,775,326 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01109 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–23 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“On June 21, 2022, the Director issued interim guidance in the form of a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors. See Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. Notably, the Director stated that “the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘PTAB’)] will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the PTAB.” Id. at 3. With this interim guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this proceeding under Fintiv because Petitioner filed a Sotera stipulation. Ex. 1093.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). Patent Owner does not dispute that Veselov is the only reference that serves as the basis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds that was considered during prosecution of the ’809 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 58–60; see also Pet. 7. The Examiner, however, did not meaningfully address Veselov during prosecution of the ’809 patent. See Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004, 73, 107– 115, 156–157, 181–182). For example, the Examiner did not apply the teachings of Veselov to teach or suggest the limitations of the originally presented claims of the ’809 patent. See id. It is also undisputed that the Examiner did not consider the other references that serve as the basis of Petitioner’s asserted obviousness grounds (i.e., Mohanty, Hutchins, and” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1001, 9:48, 11:24, 12:16. Petitioner proposes we construe this term to encompasses two alternative approaches: (1) “direct analysis of the snapshot data”; and (2) “analysis of a VM instantiated from a snapshot.” See Pet. 10. Patent Owner disputes the second approach, but not the first. See Prelim. Resp. 9–12. For purposes of institution, we agree with Petitioner’s first alternative approach—“analyz[ing] the snapshot” encompasses “direct analysis of the snapshot data.” This construction finds support in the ’809 patent’s specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:20–21 (“The snapshot is parsed and analyzed by the security system 140 to detect vulnerabilities.”), 5:37–40 (“[T]he security system 140 may be configured to match the application files, either directly (using binary comparison) or by computing a cryptographic hash against [a] database of files in vulnerable applications.”). Because, as we explain below, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis is sufficient under this first approach, we take no position on Petitioner’s second alternative approach, which Patent Owner disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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))). Pet. 8–10, we do not need to further construe the claims to determine whether to institute IPR. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We do not discern a material difference between the assessments of the level of skill in the art advanced by either party, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its own assessment. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate level of encompassing a Ph.D. degree and beyond), and does not meaningfully indicate the level of skill in the art. Petitioner’s assessment—without the qualifier—is supported by the testimony of Dr. Stavrou and it is consistent with the ’809 patent and the asserted prior art. We note, however, that our obviousness analysis would be the same under each party’s assessment.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,726,809 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01003 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 6, 15, 16, and 19 are unpatentable; claims 2, 8–10, 12, 14, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“1. “Call” Terms (Claims 1, 8, and 15) The parties, and their respective experts, agree that “telephone call” (claim 1), “electronic call” (claim 8), and “electronic phone call” (claim 15) should be interpreted to mean “voice communication over an electronic network between at least two parties,” which was Patent Owner’s proposal in the district court case. See Pet. 16, 19 n.8, 58 (citing Ex. 1027, 9);1 Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 51–53; Ex. 2016, 176:10–177:6 (Dr. Kyriakakis agreeing that “there is live voice exchange during a telephone call” (in addition to “background noise”)), 180:22–181:11 (same). Based on our review of the ’090 patent, we agree as well and adopt that interpretation for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 1–col. 5, l. 44 (“Consider an example in which a listener sits at his kitchen table and has an electronic telephone call with his mother.”), Fig. 1. 1 When citing non-patent references, we refer to page numbers added by Petitioner in the bottom-right corner of the exhibit. Listening Person” (Claim 1) and “Sound Localization Point . . . Away From and Proximate to the First Person” (Claim 15) a) Procedural History As explained above, the parties did not propose any express interpretations in their Petition and Response. See Pet. 15; PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner argued, however, that “Petitioner and Dr. Kyriakakis misapprehend the scope and meaning of the [c]hallenged [c]laims.” PO Resp. 35–49. For example, Patent Owner argued that they “mischaracterize [c]laim 1’s scope as exclusively directed at binaural recording (but not binaural synthesis),” claim 8 “inherently us[es] binaural synthesis and HRTF processing,” and “binaural synthesis methods must be employed” for claim 15. Id. at 36, 46, 48–49 (emphasis omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner characterized the dispute between the parties as pertaining to the phrase “away from and proximate to,” where Petitioner proposed an interpretation of “a distance from” and Patent Owner allegedly was proposing “externalization of sound through HRTFs and [6 degree of freedom (6DOF)] tracking of the listener relative to the SLP that represents the talker.” Reply 2–12. Patent Owner responded in its Sur-Reply by stating that Petitioner “mischaracterizes” Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner “disputes constructions that [Patent Owner] never proposed,” and Petitioner’s focus on certain claim language for which Patent Owner “never proposed construction” was “misplaced.” Sur-Reply 1–2, 11. Patent Owner agreed, though, that the parties’ disagreement was “whether the claims require HRTF processing and whether [the] prior art teaches such processing.” Id. at 5; see Tr. 49:19–21 (Patent Owner agreeing that the dispute is “whether the claims require . . . processing with HRTFs”). dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner relies on its earlier arguments regarding claim 17. Pet. 41; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184 (citing earlier analysis of Bedingfield). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Ballas’s wearable frame with head tracking and HRTF processing to Bedingfield-Andrea’s headphones” to “provide[] a more realistic virtual experience,” but does not make any argument that Ballas teaches changing an ITD. Pet. 39–43; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–191. For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that Bedingfield teaches changing an ITD. See supra Section II.D.6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 18 would have been obvious based on Bedingfield, Andrea, and Ballas under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 61
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“exceptional remedy of striking sentences in the Sur-Reply. Patent Owner filed the deposition transcripts of Dr. Welch and Dr. Roginska “only for the limited purpose of allowing the Board to understand the context of the cross-examination” and “does not rely on the[] [e]xhibits for any substantive argument in [the] Sur-Reply.” Sur-Reply v–vi. Patent Owner does not cite Exhibits 2029 and 2030 themselves in its Sur-Reply; it only cites Dr. Kyriakakis’s deposition transcript in this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that its arguments in the Sur-Reply are properly responsive to the Reply because they address Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony where he was questioned about the opinions in his reply declaration (but we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation arguments on the merits, for the reasons explained above). See Mot. to Strike Opp. 3; supra Section II.B.2.e. We also agree, under the particular factual circumstances presented, that filing Exhibits 2029 and 2030 was proper so the Board has the full context in which to evaluate Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is denied.” slip op. at 79
Patent outcomesUS 9,226,090 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,226,090 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC et al. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01023 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–14 are unpatentable under §103; claims 2, 10, and 17–20 were not shown unpatentable under either asserted ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“research experience in virtual/augmented reality, including visual and audio modeling and rendering” and that “[a]dditional education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37). “Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s definition of [a POSITA].” PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we also adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “[t]he challenged claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction, including their plain meaning.” Pet. 5. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that no claim construction is required. See id. Patent Owner contends “that ‘no express constructions of the claims are necessary.’” PO Resp. 2 (citing Dec. 10). We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). To the extent that the meaning of any claim term is addressed, we use its ordinary and customary meaning as discussed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault disclose or suggest “highlighting, while the user is located in the zone and with a display of the WED, one of the multiple SLPs in the zone when the PED held in the hand of the user is pointed at one of the multiple SLPs in the zone” as required by claim 1. Even if we assume (without deciding) that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is an SLP, we agree with Patent Owner that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is “at the boundary” of its “safe area” (i.e., zone), not “in the zone” as required by limitation 1[c]. PO Sur-reply 4; Ex. 1005, 11:66–12:15. In other words, the virtual fence “defines the zone itself and thus is not in the zone” as the claim requires. PO Sur-reply 4. Petitioner has not addressed this difference between what is claimed and what is disclosed by Pedrotti or explained why the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault would have rendered placement of the virtual fence “in the zone” obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that it would have been obvious for highlighting to occur in response to the user pointing a PED at the virtual fence (or any other virtual image). Rather, Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pedrotti’s system could have used highlighting when the PED is pointed at one of the SLPs, without pointing to sufficient basis in Pedrotti’s disclosure or explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement highlighting in the manner claimed. Pet. 20–22. Dr. Welch similarly testifies, without sufficient support in Pedrotti, regarding what a person of ordinary skill in the art “could” have done. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 268–272, 275–276. Such reasoning is inadequate to demonstrate obviousness because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).” slip op. at 18
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner also makes a number of new arguments in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have used Pedrotti’s system to highlight other SLPs, such as Pedrotti’s virtual ‘weapon[s],’” relying in part on “additional references.” Reply 6–10. Petitioner, however, only briefly referenced virtual sword 802 in its Petition and did not advocate the same theories for limitation 1[c] in its Petition. See Pet. 13 (mentioning a “virtual weapon” in connection with limitation 1[a]), 19–20; Tr. 53:17–55:1. Accordingly, these arguments in the Reply are improper new arguments, which we do not consider. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74 (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (“CTPG”) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.”); Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 10,798,509 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,798,509 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00865 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–22 and all asserted grounds; the Petition showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“On June 21, 2022, the Director issued interim guidance in the form of a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors. See Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. Notably, the Director stated that “the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘PTAB’)] will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the PTAB.” Id. With this interim guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this proceeding under Fintiv because Wiz filed a Sotera stipulation. Ex. 1083.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“The parties do not dispute that Veselov is the only reference that serves as the basis of Wiz’s asserted obviousness grounds that was considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’685 patent. See Ex. 1004, 57, 104. The Examiner, however, did not meaningfully address Veselov during prosecution of the ’685 patent. Stated differently, with respect to factor (a), the Examiner did not apply the teachings of Veselov to teach or suggest the limitations of the originally presented claims of the ’685 patent, nor did the Examiner apply the teachings of Veselov to account for language that was added via amendment during prosecution. It is undisputed that the other four references that serve as the basis of Wiz’s asserted obviousness grounds (i.e., Hufsmith, Chari, Price, and Huseinović) were not considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’685 patent. Nor did the Examiner have the benefit of Dr. Stavrou’s testimony regarding the teachings of all five references. Orca’s arguments do not appear to implicate factors (b) and (d), so we decline to engage in a substantive analysis of these two factors based on the record before us. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Orca’s arguments that the Petition presents substantially the same art and arguments that were considered previously by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’685 patent.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“Based on the preliminary record, the only claim term that requires construction is “[analyze/analyzing] the at least one snapshot,” and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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))). We understand Wiz to propose a construction for the claim term “[analyze/analyzing] the at least one snapshot” that encompasses the following two alternative approaches: (1) “direct analysis of the snapshot data”; and (2) “analysis of a VM instantiated from the snapshot.” See Pet. 10–11. Orca disputes the latter approach, but not the former approach. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11. With this in mind, and for purposes of institution, we preliminarily agree that the claim term “[analyze/analyzing] the at least one snapshot” encompasses “direct analysis of the snapshot data.” This construction finds support in the specification of the ’685 patent.6 See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:19–20 (“The snapshot is parsed and analyzed by the security system 140 to detect vulnerabilities.”), 5:36–39 (“Further, the security system 140 may be configured to match the application files, either directly (using binary comparison) or by computing a cryptographic hash against [a] database of files in vulnerable applications.”). Because, as we explain below, Wiz’s obviousness analysis is sufficient under this first approach, we take no position on the second alternative approach in Wiz’s proposed construction. 6 At this stage of the proceeding, we do not make a finding of lexicography or disclaimer. Nor do we determine that “[analyze/analyzing] at least one snapshot” is necessarily limited to “direct analysis of the snapshot data.”” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“We do not discern a material difference between the assessments of the level of skill in the art advanced by either party, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its own assessment. For purposes of institution, we adopt Wiz’s assessment, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate level of education. The qualifier expands the range without an upper bound (i.e., encompassing a Ph.D. degree and beyond), and does not meaningfully indicate the level of skill in the art. Wiz’s assessment—without the qualifier—is supported by the testimony of Dr. Stavrou and it is consistent with the ’685 patent and the asserted prior art. We note, however, that our obviousness analysis would be the same under each party’s assessment.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,693,685 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00863 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3–9, and 11–16 are obvious over Veselov and Price, with additional grounds for claims 2, 10, 6, and 14.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“On June 21, 2022, the Director issued interim guidance in the form of a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors. See Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. Notably, the Director stated that “the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘PTAB’)] will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Id. With this interim guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this proceeding under Fintiv because Petitioner filed a Sotera stipulation. Ex. 1083.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“B. Claim Construction Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 each require “analyz[ing] the at least one snapshot.” Petitioner proposes we construe this term to encompasses two alternative approaches: (1) “direct analysis of the snapshot data”; and (2) “analysis of a VM instantiated from the snapshot.” See Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner disputes the second approach, but not the former. See Prelim. Resp. 12–14. For purposes of institution, we agree with Petitioner’s first alternative approach—“analyz[ing] the at least one snapshot” encompasses “direct analysis of the snapshot data.” This construction finds support in the specification of the ’031 patent. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:17–18 (“The snapshot is parsed and analyzed by the security system 140 to detect vulnerabilities.”), 6:23–24 (“[T]he security system 140 may be configured to match the application files, either directly using binary comparison or by computing a cryptographic hash against [a] database of files in vulnerable applications.”). Because, as we explain below, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis is sufficient under this first approach, we take no position on Petitioner’s second alternative approach, which Patent Owner disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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))).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We do not discern a material difference between the assessments of the level of skill in the art advanced by either party, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its own assessment. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate level of education. The qualifier expands the range without an upper bound (i.e., encompassing a Ph.D. degree and beyond), and does not meaningfully indicate the level of skill in the art. Petitioner’s assessment—without the qualifier—is supported by the testimony of Dr. Stavrou and it is consistent with the ’031 patent and the asserted prior art. We note, however, that our obviousness analysis would be the same under each party’s assessment.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“As noted above, Petitioner explains that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Veselov’s virtual computing security assessment system with Price’s inactive/at rest security assessments “to provide the well-known security benefit of preventing further damage that might otherwise be caused if a potentially compromised VM actively runs (e.g., a vulnerability could be exploited, or suspected malware could contaminate other resources).” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1048 ¶ 14; Ex. 1002 ¶ 105). With this rationale, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that its proffered combination would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Patent Owner’s argument highlighting mere differences between Veselov and Price—i.e., Veselov’s active VMs versus Price’s inactive ones—does not undermine Petitioner’s proffered rationale and does not suggest that Price’s inactive security assessments are incompatible with Veselov’s general security-assessment structure. In addition, Petitioner presents sufficient arguments and evidence for purposes of institution that a skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination. Specifically, Petitioner explains, with relevant support from its declarant, Dr. Stavrou, and the prior art, that “[o]ffline snapshotting and offline analysis were routine and predictable.” Pet. 25 (citing Exs. 1002, 1073, 1081). “Moreover,” Petitioner explains, “most of Veselov’s snapshot-generation and analysis techniques require no interaction with the original VM and, as a result, the state of the original VM can be inactive or at rest when the snapshot is taken and while the snapshot analysis is being performed.” Id. (citing Exs. 1002, 1007). Patent Owner’s arguments that “[n]othing in Veselov discloses or suggests” either no-interaction snapshots or that the original VM can be inactive when the snapshot is taken, see Prelim. Resp. 31, does not undermine that one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in taking and analyzing snapshots of inactive VMs.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,663,031
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.