• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2025 · IPR2024-01052 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3–6 and 13–16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted Watanabe combinations were unsupported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “cameras.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–38). Petitioner further contends “[a]n advanced graduate degree in the disciplines cited above may make up for the work experience indicated above.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute and applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. PO Resp. 6. We find that Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with the ’832 patent specification and 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). Thus, we apply Petitioner’s proposal in our analysis.” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we construed “determin[ing] a viewing window for the visual content as a function of progress through the progress length” as “requiring determining a viewing window for different times of the video.” Inst. Dec. 21. Neither party disputes this construction. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 1–7. We maintain this same construction.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Thomason are in the same field of endeavor. Thomason describes a camera and method for correctly orientating pictures from the camera. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 2 29–40, Figs. 3a–3b. In particular, Thomason is interested in rotating and cropping images to reduce the effect of poor orientation. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 34, 36). Pacurariu likewise describes aligning and resizing/cropping of a captured image to correct poor orientation. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 3, 45–56, Figs. 5A–5C. The preponderance of the evidence also supports that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the Pacurariu’s teachings with Thomason to predictably improve Thomason. Thomason teaches correct rotation of video data and makes use of rotation sensor to correct rotated images. Pet. 19–21 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 27, 29, 35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–77). Pacurariu similarly uses sensors and measures tilt angle of the camera. Id at 21–22 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51–52, Fig. 6; Ex. 1002 ¶ 78). Pacurariu further teaches that its tilt data angle can be stored for each “video frame.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 52). Petitioner, with support from credible testimony of Dr. Katsaggelos, explains how the teachings of Thomason and Pacurariu could be successfully combined. Id. at 23 (citing, for example, Ex. 1002 ¶ 81). A person of ordinary skill in the art could have known that Thomason’s system could be improved by saving rotation data for each video frame and correcting images on a frame-by-frame basis. Id. at 23–24. The testimony of Dr. Katsaggelos is credible in this regard. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81. Petitioner and Dr. Katsaggelos explain the references’ teachings and, based on these teachings, assert that a person having skill in the art would have had reason to combine with reasonable expectation of success based on those teachings. Reason to combine may properly come from the references themselves. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (explaining reason to combine may come from “interrelated teachings of multiple patents”). Based on the evidence presented, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Thomason and Pacurariu with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–81, 89–92; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 8–9, 27, 29, 35; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26, 41, 46, 51–52, 55–57, Figs. 6, 7.” slip op. at 27

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

    “evaluating nexus between the claimed invention and objective evidence of nonobviousness, also referred to as secondary considerations. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 at 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential). We first consider whether Patent Owner has demonstrated “that its products are coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims,” resulting in a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Id. at 33. If not, that “does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. (quoting Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75).” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 11,336,832 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,336,832
• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00984 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable as obvious over Meulen and Chao; claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because Meulen does not disclose transforming an image captured by its camera.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science, or equivalent field, and two years of experience working on image or video processing, or digital cameras,” or alternatively “would have four years of experience working on image or video processing, or digital cameras.” Pet. 6. Petitioner further argues that an “advanced graduate degree” may “make up for the work experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” PO Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 19–20). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’413 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “From the outset we note that the words of the claim recite “non- uniformly shift[ing] the pixels” and do not recite a “non-linear” transformation. This favors Petitioner’s position, which is based directly off the definition of “non-uniform,” over Patent Owner’s position, which substitutes “non-linear” for “non-uniform.” Generally, then, we would determine the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term in the context of the entire Specification. Here, however, the ʼ413 patent does not mention “uniform” or “non-uniform” shifting of pixels anywhere except in the claims. The Specification, therefore, provides limited guidance, by itself, as to the ordinary and customary meaning of the term. Nonetheless, even reviewing the portions of the Specification cited by the parties, we see no clear or unambiguous effort to limit the challenged claims to require only non-linear transformations in which the pixels to which a transformation is applied do not have the same amount of shift. is not non-linear. Pet. Reply 1. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the center circle of Figure 2B maintains the original circular shape after the transformation is applied to the image which contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that no two pixels will have the same amount of shift. Pet. Reply 1–2. We agree. In Figure 2B of the ʼ413 patent, the center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest. Ex. 1001, 4:19–21. After the input image goes through linear scaling (step 204) and then non-linear warping (step 206) the circles become more vertically compressed as they approach the top and bottom edges and more horizontally stretched as they approach the left and right edges. Id. at 4:22–30. But “the center circle is fully corrected so that it maintains the original circular shape of the corresponding circle in the input image 212.” Id. at 4:23–25. This means that at least some pixels, such as those of the center circle, undergo the same amount of shift after being transformed.” slip op. at 11

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

    “readable instructions” of claims 1 and 2 must occur in a particular order. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the step of “determine a portion within the input image” must occur after “obtain[ing] an image” and before “apply[ing] a transformation to the input image.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 59). Petitioner argues, on the other hand, that the specification does not require such an order and, in fact, describes an embodiment where such an order is not followed. Pet. 3. We determine that the “determine a portion within the input image” step does not need to occur after the “obtain an image” step and before the “apply a transformation to the input image” step. As Patent Owner itself points out, claims 1 and 2 are apparatus and system claims respectively, and an ordering of the limitations of such claims is not necessary. PO Resp. 17. Even if we were to treat the apparatus and system claims as reciting the steps of a method, “as a general rule the claim is not limited to performance of the steps in the order recited, unless the claim explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order.” Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). We see nothing in the claims that would cause us to break this general rule. Patent Owner argues that the claims imply a “specific order because the ‘determine a portion’ requirement operates on ‘the [obtained] input image’ and defines the ‘portion’ that is necessary for the 23; Ex. 2027 ¶ 59). Although the steps are recited in a specific order in the claim, as they necessarily must be, the claim does not expressly specify that the certain steps must occur before or after other instructions, nor does logic imply such a requirement. For example, if certain characteristics of the image are known before the image is obtained (e.g. the size, dimensions, resolution, aspect ratio, or content etc.) the determination of the portion of the image could be made before the image is obtained. These characteristics may be based on the specific device taking the image or the subject matter of the image, both of which may be known before the image is captured or obtained. It is, therefore, not necessary that the image be obtained in order for a portion of the image to be determined. Similarly, we do not find the written description to expressly or implicitly specify an order the claimed step of “determine a portion of the input image.” For example, the written description of the ʼ413 patent states that in Figure 2B “the center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest that is most fully corrected and the distortion increases in each direction as the frame boundary is approached.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–22. Patent Owner emphasizes that this disclosure implies that an input image is obtained before the center portion is chosen. PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:63–64, 4:19–22). But the description of this embodiment does not expressly recite an order. For example, the description of Figure 2A explains that “an input image is obtained” in step 202, “the image is then scaled” in step 204, and a “non-linear warping is then applied” in step 206. Ex. 1001, 3:63–4:3. This description does not mention “determin[ing] of a portion of the image” as a separate step or as part of the listed steps, and therefore, does not specify an order in which this step must occur. is configured so that some areas of the image are fully corrected geometrically, while some other areas are distorted. . . . [T]he center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest that is most fully corrected and the distortion increases in each direction.” Id. at 4:17–19. This excerpt from the ʼ413 patent, which the Patent Owner specifically relies on (PO Resp. 19), also does not specify an order in which the determination step (choosing of the region of interest) takes place. Moreover, because the ʼ413 patent states that the warp module is configured so that some areas are fully corrected while others are not, the determination step could take place at the time the warp module was configured, presumably before the image was obtained. Finally, the ʼ413 patent states that “in the case, of video, the area may dynamically change between images (e.g. to follow a moving object).” Ex. 1001, 4:34–36. Patent Owner argues that this description “requires first obtaining the image in order to locate the object that is being followed.” PO Resp. 19–20. This embodiment is related to the case of video or a moving object, which the challenged claims do not mention. We, therefore, decline to limit the scope of the claim based on this embodiment. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and cited evidence we determine Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Meulen and Chao. For example, Petitioner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious that when performing image scaling, pixels from the input to output positions are shifted based on a scaling factor.” Pet. 91. Meulen teaches scaling but does not provide the details regarding scaling. E.g., Ex. 1007, 1:55–56, 4:37–49. We agree that in light of Meulen’s disclosure of scaling, a POSITA would have looked to other references, such as Chao, for further details on how to perform scaling. Dr. Katsaggelos provides credible support, testifying that “Meulen mentions ‘compression and/or scaling,’ and provides details on how to perform compression. But Meulen does not disclose the details of how to perform scaling. A POSITA when faced with Meulen and having the knowledge about scaling would have been motivated to turn to a prior art reference that discloses the details of scaling.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 262. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner provides no motivation to combine other than asserting that it involves combining prior art elements. PO Resp. 35 (quoting Pet. 92). As explained above, however, Petitioner does more than just assert that the motivation involves combining prior art elements. Instead, Petitioner explains that Meulen discusses both compression and scaling, and provides details regarding compression but does not provide details on how to scale. Pet. 91–92; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 262–262. Thus, Meulen teaches that scaling was a known technique. See Hybritech, (“a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art”). Dr. Katsaggelos testifies that, in this situation, a POSITA would have looked to Chao for details regarding scaling. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 262–263. We determine this establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSITA would have had reason to combine Meulen’s teachings with Chao. Patent Owner draws a distinction between Meulen and Chao, arguing that “Meulen is concerned with modifying content from a media source to be displayed on a device’s screen while Chao, by contrast, is directed to changing the aspect ratio of a document intended for printing.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 89–90). Patent Owner’s argument is contradicted, however, by Chao’s disclosure which states that “after all the background and foreground elements in the image have been resized . . . [t]he image may be output by displaying the image on or as part of: a display screen such as a computer monitor, camera screen, printer screen, printed page, projected image, or the like.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 32. Patent Owner argues that Meulen’s system avoids distortion near the middle where the user’s focus is more likely to be, while Chao, on the other hand, is directed to avoiding distortion of stylized borders on differently sized pages. PO Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:26–29; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1, 25; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 91–92). This argument reads the prior art too narrowly and does not address Petitioner’s combination. Petitioner does not rely on Chao for its teaching of avoiding distortion near the borders of the image, but rather on its teaching of scaling the image while maintaining the design intent of the original image. Ex. 1008 ¶ 22; Ex. 1014 ¶ 67. Thus, Petitioner is applying Chao’s techniques of scaling (regardless of where the area of 92. Finally, Patent Owner argues that Chao’s approach of stretching/shrinking only the background and uniformly scaling entire foreground objects is suitable for graphic design but incompatible with Meulen which is concerned with adapting externally derived media source content for display on a fixed size screen. PO Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 93). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because it does not address Petitioner’s combination. Petitioner relies on Chao’s teaching of stretching/shrinking of background elements and applies that stretching/shrinking to Meulen’s images displayed on its screen. Pet. 91–92 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 28, 63; Ex. 1002 ¶ 263). The fact that Chao applies its teaching to graphic design does not prevent a POSITA from applying those teachings to Meulen’s media content displayed on its screen.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,015,413 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,015,413
• Recor Medical, Inc. / Otsuka Medical Devices Co., Ltd. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2025 · IPR2022-00431 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1–3 and 8–12 are unpatentable over the instituted grounds; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Federal Circuit (Paper 33), which vacated the original Final Written Decision and remanded the proceeding to the Board. See ReCor Med., Inc. v. Medtronic Ir. Mfg. Unlimited Co., No. 2023-2251, 2025 WL 944511 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2025) (“the Appeal Decision” or “Appeal Dec.”); see also Paper 41 (copy of the Appeal Decision). The Federal Circuit’s mandate issued on May 5, 2025. See Paper 40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6, and we issue this Final Written Decision on Remand under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons below, on the complete record, we conclude that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the unpatentability of claims 1–3 and 8–12 of the challenged patent, and we conclude that Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the unpatentability of claim 4.” slip op. at 2

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

    “and Petitioner’s rebuttal evidence. Objective evidence of nonobviousness, when present, must be considered as part of an obviousness inquiry. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, the totality of the evidence submitted, including objective evidence of nonobviousness, may lead to a conclusion that one or more of the challenged claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 50

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “1. Claims 1–3 and 8–11 Because the obviousness ground based on Levin and Acker is dispositive as to challenged claims 1–3 and 8–11, we need not reach this additional ground as to those claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 371 (2018) (holding that a petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Boston Sci. Scimed, analysis in the appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Appeal Dec. *1–*2 (summarizing grounds at issue on appeal and not discussing anticipation based on Acker). Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential) (stating that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding,” such as “alternative arguments with respect to claims [the Board] found unpatentable on other grounds”); SK Hynix Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2017-00692, Paper 25 at 40 (PTAB July 5, 2018) (determining all challenged claims to be unpatentable and not addressing additional grounds). 2. Dependent Claim 4 As to dependent claim 4, in the context of this ground, Petitioner relies on Acker as to the additional limitations in claim 4 in the same manner as relied on in the context of the ground based on Levin and Acker. See Pet. 73 (“The combination teaches this element for the same reasons described in [the obviousness ground based on Levin and Acker], claim 4, with the exception that [one of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated based on his or her knowledge of prior renal denervation work, as noted above.”). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above (see § II.C.3.c), we determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 4 would have been obvious based on Acker and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. G. Asserted Obviousness of Claim 12 Based on Acker, the Knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art, and Yock Petitioner asserts that claim 12, which depends from independent claim 1, would have been obvious based on Acker, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and Yock. Pet. 12, 75; Pet. Reply 35–36. Patent Owner provides arguments addressing this ground. PO Resp. 57–60; PO” slip op. at 75

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

    “1. Independent Claim 1 Petitioner contends that Acker discloses each limitation of claim 1. Pet. 61–63; Pet. Reply 35. In the “Overview of the Ground” section, Petitioner references its proposed construction of the phrase “configured to” and states that “it is proper to consider whether the prior art is ‘capable of’ performing the recited functions, as opposed to requiring that a designer of a prior art device have actually conceived of the recited functional language.” Pet. 61. Petitioner continues: “If the PTAB agrees that this is the proper approach to claim construction, then Acker also anticipates the claims challenged in this ground.” Id. For the reasons below, we determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Acker. As to element 1d, which includes the phrase “configured to,”16 Petitioner states that Acker is capable of being used to target renal neural fibers outside of the blood vessel to thermally induce modulation of target neural fibers while protecting non-target tissue in the blood vessel wall from thermal injury for the reasons discussed under claim 1, limitation [1d] and in the section entitled “Reasonable Expectation of Success”, beginning on page 37 [of the Petition]. Pet. 62–63 (citing Daft Pet. Decl. ¶ 179) (first bracketed text added by Petitioner). Patent Owner argues that, in the context of this asserted ground based” slip op. at 71

  Patent outcomesUS 8,845,629 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,845,629
• Lumi Legend Corporation v. Manehu Product Alliance, LLCAdverse judgment
  PTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · PGR2024-00014 · APJ Barry L Grossman · PGR · Adverse judgment

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment against itself and held claims 33–36 unpatentable.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “October 25, 2024, from counsel for Patent Owner, Patent Owner requested authorization to file “a request for adverse judgment against itself under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).” Ex. 3003 (emphases added). Our Rule 42.73(b) states “A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” The Board granted Patent Owner’s request. Ex. 3003. Patent Owner then filed its “Request for Adverse Judgment Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).” Paper 11 (Request for Adverse Judgment). This Request, however, stated, in error, that Patent Owner requested “adverse judgment against Petitioner on claims 33-36, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4).” Id. (emphases added). Our Rule 42.73(b)(4) concerns “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) (emphasis added). Subsection (b)(4) states one of the actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment is “[a]bandonment of the contest.” Id. The actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment, however, are never reached when a party states unequivocally that it requests “judgment against itself.” that the Request for Adverse Judgement is seeking adverse judgment against itself, not Petitioner. Id. As stated in the title of Patent Owner’s Request for Adverse Judgment, we consider this request under our Rule 42.73(b). As corrected, the Request seeks a “final adverse judgment against [Patent Owner] on claims 33-36,” which are all the challenged claims. Thus, claims 33–36 are held to be unpatentable. 1” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 11,781,703
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2023-01345 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7–11, and 14–20 were shown unpatentable over White or Nussbaum; claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable over White or Nussbaum with Shakkarwar.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not inclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to require a specific number of years (or a fully bounded range) in the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. First, Patent Owner has not offered any legal authority supporting or explaining its position. Second, using the term “at least [X] years” is common practice and generally understood to be an approximation regarding the minimum level of skill of a hypothetical person—in other words, no precision can truly be expected of the specific number of years in this context. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person.”). The point of the exercise is to provide context for a holistic obviousness analysis. See id. (setting out “various factors” used to analyze the level of ordinary skill); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the hypothetical person is an “an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability”). We are not persuaded of a need for strict precision in the number of years of experience of a hypothetical person used in our analysis in this case. Third, Patent Owner asks for no particular relief based upon its argument. That is, even if we agreed to remove “at least,” Patent Owner does not argue that the outcome of the Decision would be any different.1 1 For example, setting the level of skill to exactly two years of experience would not serve to automatically disqualify an expert having ten years. Kyocera Senco Ind’l Tools v. Int’l Trade Com’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (requiring that “a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art” and stating that “it would be improper to require an expert witness to possess ordinary skill in the art and nothing more”). In conclusion, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is reasonably consistent with the level of skill implied in the disclosure of the ’588 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The description of “mapping” in the ’588 patent makes clear to us that it is an association of an input value from a set of input values to a corresponding output value from a set of output values. Id. at 2:44–46 (describing “the mapping table that associates non-core domain operating frequencies and corresponding interconnect operating frequencies”) (emphases added). The “association” described here in the ’588 patent is not merely describing the fact that both exist, but that knowing the value of the first causes you to know the value of the second. This is also how it is described in the claims, wherein the “mapping” is “of selectable frequencies of the graphics processing circuitry to selectable frequencies of the interconnect.” Id. at 8:63–65 (emphasis added). Or more generally, the claim recites a mapping of a frequency to a frequency. In sum, although we agree with the parties that “mapping” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification, we note that the parties appear to dispute whether the prior art teaches the claimed “mapping” based on differing understandings of the plain and ordinary meaning. Based on our analysis above, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing the ’588 patent would understand that the “mapping” limitation requires (1) frequencies mapped to frequencies and (2) that a mapping is an association of one value to a corresponding value such that knowing the graphics frequency means that you know the corresponding interconnect frequency. Further, given that the corresponding frequencies are “selectable,” we understand that to mean that there is a set of possible frequencies that are defined from which to select. Ex. 2001, 21:19–22:2. With this understanding, we can turn to the dispute over whether the prior art teaches the limitations set forth in claims 5 and 12, as no other terms require construction at this time. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given this disclosure, we agree with the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar’s empirical calculation, by looking up the frequencies of various devices and summing them up, is not the claimed mapping of frequencies to frequencies. Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:8– 16, 6:49–7:17). That is, rather than teaching the use of the graphics device frequency get a corresponding interconnect frequency, Shakkarwar calculates the interconnect frequency by adding up the frequencies of all of the devices using the interconnect. Ex. 1006, 6:63–7:30; Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (“Considerations of the hardware are addressed through empirical calculation, by knowing the requested data bandwidth of each device.”). Based on the above, we find that Shakkarwar’s table does not map a set of frequencies to a set of frequencies, and we find that the alleged mapping in Shakkarwar is not what is required by the claim because knowing the non-core device frequency in Shakkarwar is insufficient to know the required interconnect frequency. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar does not teach the claimed mapping. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–45. On the other hand, the testimony of Petitioner’s expert is conclusory on this point, and fails to grapple with these differences between the claims and prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert over Petitioner’s expert as to the teachings of Shakkarwar.” slip op. at 16

  • BurdenMixed

    “that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Shakkarwar teaches the claimed mapping limitation, for the following reasons. The lookup table in Shakkarwar has a list of clock speeds (frequencies) for specific devices. Ex. 1006, 7:7–10. These clock speeds represent the bandwidth needs of each individual device. Id. at 7:10–13. By looking up the bandwidth needs of each individual device in use, the system can determine the total bandwidth need. Id. at 7:5–17. For example, if one device requires 20 Megabits of data and the second device requires 10 Megabits of data, then the data rate (bandwidth) required will be 30 Megabits of data. Id. at 7:13–17. If the required bandwidth is different from the current bandwidth, then the current bandwidth must be modified. Id. at 7:18–26. Given this disclosure, we agree with the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar’s empirical calculation, by looking up the frequencies of various devices and summing them up, is not the claimed mapping of frequencies to frequencies. Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:8– 16, 6:49–7:17). That is, rather than teaching the use of the graphics device frequency get a corresponding interconnect frequency, Shakkarwar calculates the interconnect frequency by adding up the frequencies of all of the devices using the interconnect. Ex. 1006, 6:63–7:30; Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (“Considerations of the hardware are addressed through empirical calculation, by knowing the requested data bandwidth of each device.”). Based on the above, we find that Shakkarwar’s table does not map a set of frequencies to a set of frequencies, and we find that the alleged mapping in Shakkarwar is not what is required by the claim because knowing the non-core device frequency in Shakkarwar is insufficient to know the required interconnect frequency. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar does not teach the claimed mapping. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–45. On the other hand, the testimony of Petitioner’s expert is conclusory on this point, and fails to grapple with these differences between the claims and prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert over Petitioner’s expert as to the teachings of Shakkarwar.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,705,588 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,705,588
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2023-01335 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, and 13 are unpatentable over Conroy and Finkelstein or Conroy; claims 14–18 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not inclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to require a specific number of years (or a fully bounded range) in the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. First, Patent Owner has not offered any legal authority supporting or justifying its position. Second, using the term “at least [X] years” is common practice and generally understood to be an approximation regarding the minimum level of skill of a hypothetical person—in other words, no precision can truly be expected of the specific number of years in this context. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person.”). The point of the exercise is to provide context for a holistic obviousness analysis. See id. (setting out “various factors” used to analyze the level of ordinary skill); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the hypothetical person is an “an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability”). We are not persuaded of a need for strict precision in the number of years of experience of a hypothetical person used in our analysis in this case. Third, Patent Owner asks for no particular relief based upon its argument. That is, even if we agreed to remove “at least,” Patent Owner does not argue that the outcome of the Decision would be any different.1 In conclusion, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is reasonably consistent with the level of skill implied in the disclosure of the ’833 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “Pet. 10. Patent Owner provides a construction for the term “independent” of claim 1. PO Resp. 12–18. For context, claim 1 requires first and second domains, wherein “each of the first and second domains [] operate at an independent voltage and frequency.” Patent Owner provides its analysis and concludes that claim 1 requires that the voltage and frequency of the first and second domains to be “controlled separately from one another.” PO Resp. 14, 15. We disagree with Patent Owner’s conclusion. In particular, we note that Patent Owner is attempting to add a “control” limitation to the claim. The claim does not require independent control of the first and second domains, it requires them “to operate at an independent voltage and frequency.” That is, by the plain language of the claims, what is independent is the voltage and frequency of the first domain compared to the voltage and frequency of the second domain. Patent Owner identifies many passages in the ’833 patent specification allegedly supporting its position, but we do not find any of these passages persuades us to agree with Patent Owner’s position. See PO Resp. 12–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:13–17, 1:63–66, 7:59–62, 8:27–31, 8:38– 46, 10:4–8). These passages mostly state that the domains are independent, which we understand to mean “separate” in this context. Ex. 1001, 1:63–66, 7:59–62, 8:27–31, 8:38–46, 10:4–8; accord PO Resp. 14 (summarizing these citations and concluding that “the term ‘independent’ is used in its ordinary sense to mean ‘separate.’”); Ex. 2002 ¶ 33 (same). One passage is similar to the claim language, and recites that a core can be “of an independent power domain and can be configured to operate at an independent voltage and/or frequency.” Id. at 8:27–31. We see nothing in these passages that would require independent control as opposed to “operate at an independent voltage and frequency” as claimed. Instead, in the one passage that is similar to the claim language, it is clear that what is “independent” is the “voltage and/or frequency.” Id. at 8:27–31. Patent Owner then cites to another batch of passages from the ’833 patent and concludes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ’833 patent is describing a situation in which voltages and/or frequencies of the different domains are controlled separately from one another.” PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:56–60, 1:63–66, 2:22–25, 2:32–36, 5:9–12, 5:21, 5:27–44, 7:20–24, 8:38–42, Fig. 1; Ex. 2002 ¶ 33). Most of these passages describe the domains being allocated portions of a power budget. See Ex. 1001, 1:56–60, 2:22–25, 5:28–40, 7:20–24, 8:38–42. One passage is similar to the prior batch of citations, stating that the domains themselves are independent. Id. at 1:63–66. Other passages describe a power control unit doing the allocation, and refers to this as “control.” Id. at 2:32–36, 5:27–26, 5:21, 5:40–44. Last cited by Patent Owner is Figure 1, which has a box labeled “Control First and Second Domains Frequency and Voltage.” Id., Fig. 1 (item 130). Reviewing the cited passages and the figure, we find that the power control unit allocates or controls power. However, the claim is not directed to the power control unit and it does not use the word “control.” The claim requires the first and second domains to have independent voltages and frequencies, and we fail to see any support in the specification to add an additional requirement for independent control of the first and second domains. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “claim 13, it is the domain that is allocated the power budget (as opposed to the domain’s individual cores). See Ex. 1001, 12:57–59 (“allocate a variable power budget between the . . . domains”), 1:56–66 (explaining domains— “the term ‘domain’ is used to mean a collection of hardware and/or logic that operates at the same voltage and frequency point”). We agree with Patent Owner and credit its expert that Nussbaum is concerned with the power settings of each individual core, GPU, or other computational unit. Ex. 2003 ¶ 63. Even if, in one passage, Nussbaum talks about power reallocation in “computational units, such as the CPU or [GPU],” in context it is clear that the allocations remain on the individual, e.g., core, level. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 19– 20, 21 (Table 1), 23 (Table 2), 24. First, in the sentence just cited, Nussbaum disparages treating units homogenously, i.e., adjusting them in groups or domains (as required by claim 13). Id. ¶ 19. Then, Nussbaum praises distributing power “among the active cores or other computational units,” i.e., on an individual or core level. Id. In this phrase, Nussbaum is not using “computational units” as a word meaning “CPU,” because Nussbaum already directly references the “cores” in the phrase. Id. Nussbaum later discusses figuring out how each core reacts to power changes, in order to determine which cores can better exploit additional power. Id. ¶¶ 25–28. For these reasons, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Nussbaum does not disclose allocating power to a plurality of cores as a single domain (Ex. 2002 ¶ 63), which is consistent with the above-noted disclosures of Nussbaum.” slip op. at 15

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

    “not address these passages of the Petition. See generally PO Resp. 57–59, Sur-reply 17–18. Instead, Patent Owner challenges a separate, general rationale that Petitioner made at the beginning of its ground. See Pet. 69. Rationales that are broad and general may be persuasive. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]ationale[s] [are] not inherently suspect merely because [they’re] generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal. Quite the opposite.”). We need not evaluate Petitioner’s general rationale here, however, because we find Petitioner’s unrebutted, specific rationale arguments about providing a user interface to edit or revise the power sharing values to be persuasive. See Pet. 77–78 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1029 ¶ 236). In particular, we agree with Petitioner that providing a user interface to allow a user to edit the power tables, as taught in Finkelstein, would have been a routine and obvious modification to Conroy. As Petitioner’s expert points out, even beyond the teachings of Finkelstein, it was known in the art to allow users control over power allocation. Ex. 1029 ¶ 236 (citing Ex. 1026, 11:13–27 (describing a “user preferences database” containing “parameters and procedures for how to apportion power among various devices”); Ex. 1028 ¶ 17 (“The [power allocation] preference might be determined . . . based on a selection by a user of the system (e.g., via a graphical interface).”)). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed combination is an example of using a known feature to provide a known benefit. The known feature is a user interface, and the known benefit is allowing the user to indicate their preferences through the interface. See Ex. 1029 ¶ 236; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”). Based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has established a reason with rational underpinnings for combining the user level control interface of Finkelstein with the power management system of Conroy.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,775,833 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,775,833
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01343 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 13–15, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable because Bose and White, alone or in the asserted combinations, failed to teach claimed workload comparisons or workload monitoring.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are persuaded and find for the reasons given that Petitioner fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that White teaches or suggests “receiving a bus workload for a communication bus and a first processing element workload for a first processing element based on an integrated circuit reaching a limit.” Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Brogioli testifies that “[t]he workload is a function of the demands imposed by, e.g., applications running on the system, and may or may not be subject to direct control, whereas the conditions under which that workload is processed are controlled directly.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 66. We agree with Dr. Brogioli and find that White’s frequency and voltage monitoring and adjustments do not result in the power management logic receiving the bus workload as recited in claim element 4[a]. Id. ¶¶ 64–66. We find the testimony of Mr. Wyatt on this issue unconvincing. Wyatt Decl. ¶ 103. In support of his opinion that “monitoring the operating voltages and frequencies of the logic core 120A and common logic bridge 110 is monitoring the workload of those components,” he states: “It was well understood that operating frequency and voltage of a component reflect the activity and use, or workload, of that component.” Id. However, he does not provide any evidentiary support for this statement. We, therefore, give it little weight. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 40 (Nov. 2019)5 (“Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.”) (citing Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).” slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “response. Paper 9. At the institution stage, therefore, Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 12–13. In its Response, Patent Owner states that it “uses this definition” in its analysis. PO Resp. 15 (citing Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25). In view of the foregoing, for this Decision, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’494 patent and the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Mr. Wyatt. See Wyatt Decl. ¶ 21.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Post-institution, Patent Owner proposes a construction for the term “workload.” PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in the ’494 patent, the term ‘workload’ means ‘an amount of activity over a quantum or period of time.’” Id. at 15. Dr. Brogioli’s testimony supports this construction, as does Mr. Wyatt’s. Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 36–38; Wyatt Dep. 34:14–36:9. The ’494 patent also supports this construction. Ex. 1001, 8:20–22, 9:60–63. Petitioner does not dispute this proposed construction in its Reply. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “workload.”” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Nowhere does Petitioner or its expert point to an explicit disclosure in Bose of making a comparison of the claimed “bus workload and a bus workload threshold.” Instead, Petitioner relies on its expert’s opinion as to what a person of ordinary skill might have known, without any additional supporting evidence. See, e.g., Pet. 26 (“[A person of ordinary skill] would have understood global PMCU compares a workload threshold as exemplified by the predicted power and performance of each power mode and the monitored workload to select and adjust the power mode of a component” (citing Wyatt Decl. ¶¶ 54–55)). This opinion is not supported by the record. The only disclosure of a comparison in Bose that we have been shown is the comparison of PowerTotal to PowerMax in step 303 of Figure 3, which Petitioner does not rely on to meet the “comparison” limitation in the claim. Hearing Tr. 17:16–20. Also without proper support is Petitioner’s assertion that “a [person of ordinary skill] would have understood that in Bose, selecting or adjusting power mode for a component entails comparing a workload threshold, such as predicted power and performance associated with each power mode with real time statistics, such as the monitored workload of a component.” Pet. 26 (citing Wyatt Decl. ¶¶ 55–56). We determine that for the reasons given, Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimed comparison element 1[g] of claim 1 is taught or suggested by Bose. We find, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that claim 1 is anticipated by Bose, nor has Petitioner demonstrated that to a person of ordinary skill, claim 1 would have been obvious in light of Bose.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,898,494 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,898,494
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01333 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Sutardja, Sutardja and Rychlik, or Sutardja and Carmack; the Board did not reach the Mathieson-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 14–15.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We decline to “throw out” Dr. Horst’s testimony for several reasons. First and foremost, Patent Owner has not moved or otherwise sought to exclude his testimony, or even filed an objection. Hearing Tr. 46:19–47:1. Thus, the issue of whether the testimony should be excluded is not properly before us. Further, Petitioner asserts that “[t]his distinction is irrelevant.” Pet. Reply 2. We agree. Patent Owner has not pointed to any opinion by Dr. Horst that turns on the alleged “flaw” in the definition of the person of ordinary skill. Id. at 46:19–48:3. Finally, there is no prejudice. Patent Owner’s expert used the definition proposed by Patent Owner in his analysis. See Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25. Nor could Patent Owner show us with specificity any place in the record where resolving this dispute would make a difference in this case. Hearing Tr. 46:3–47:3. For the reasons given, we do not see the need to modify our definition of a person of ordinary skill or to exclude or give little weight to Dr. Horst’s opinions.” slip op. at 15

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

    “operating system.” PO Resp. 12–13. Relying on the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Patent Owner contends that “[a]n ‘operating system’ is, and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be, ‘The software that controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources such as memory, central processing unit (CPU) time, disk space, and peripheral devices.’” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2007, 378). Dr. Brogioli’s testimony generally supports this construction, as does Dr. Horst’s. See Brogioli Dep. 8:17–22; Horst Dep. 32:3–8. Petitioner responds that the term “should be understood in accordance with its plain meaning,” and therefore does not require construction, but does not dispute Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Pet. Reply 2. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “operating system.” However, we do not see this construction as dispositive of the central issue of whether the operating system in Sutardja controls the transition of the cores. See Section II.D.1, infra. slip op. at 16

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

    “PMS module do not ‘control’ the core switching module or the hardware on which it runs. Instead, the kernel and the PMS module only make system calls to the core switching module.” PO Resp. 27. We disagree that this is not sufficient control to meet this claim limitation. As Dr. Horst’s testimony (quoted supra) explains, the PMS module and kernel modules “trigger a transition” by generating a call to the hypervisor module or a core switching module. Horst Decl. ¶ 124. Patent Owner’s argument fails because it assumes the claims require direct control, when the claims recite no such restriction (nor have we been asked by either party to construe the claims as such).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,049,080 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,049,080
• Fortinet, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00158 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Pham and Wu, and granted joinder.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “4. Conclusion for Claim 1 Having reviewed the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Pham and Wu. E. Conclusion on the Merits of the Petition We have found that the Petition warrants institution based on Petitioner’s showings for claim 1. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments about the other grounds, but they largely rely on the earlier unpersuasive arguments for claim 1. On whole, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the Petition warrants institution.” slip op. at 18

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder with IPR2023- 00703 is granted, and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and Fortinet, Inc. are joined as a party in IPR2023-00703;” slip op. at 27

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “based on the related district court matters identified above. Opp. Mot. Join 4–12. Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3. Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue in the copending district court litigation the specific ground asserted in the petition, or any other ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., grounds that could have been raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patent or printed publications)” (Reply Mot. Join 4–5), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 21

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner

    “factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.”) (Director Review). Patent Owner focuses its analysis on factor 5 and proposed factor 8. Id. at 13–15. As to factor 5, which looks for an explanation of the time between petition filing, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently explained the time between Cisco’s petition and its own when it noted that it merely filed its petition and request for joinder when the statute permitted it. Reply Mot. Join 6 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)). In particular, the statute requires the earlier petition to be instituted before joining a party. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (requiring joinder to be to instituted proceedings). Thus, the time elapsed between filings is motivated by the statutory and regulatory procedures. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (requiring the joinder motion to be filed “no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested”). As to proposed factor 8, we agree with Petitioner that the present situation does not apply. Reply Mot. Join. 6–7; see also Shenzhen, IPR2018-00761, Paper 15, 18–19 (Saindon, concurring) (“There are legitimate reasons why a petition may be filed after [a decision on institution)].”). Proposed factor 8 analyzes situations where a second petitioner strategically waits to file its petition to see what happens to an earlier filed petition. Shenzhen, IPR2018-00898, Paper 9 at 7. If both of the petitioners were sued at or around the same time, but one waits until the other goes first, it can lead to an inference that the delay in filing a different petition was to gain an unfair advantage. Id. at 14 (looking with disfavor on a wait-and-see strategy to use the first petition as a “test case”). That is not the case here, where the second petition is a copycat petition. The Petition here cannot be said to have been filed second in order to glean knowledge from the first petition because it is the same petition. Thus, we do not see this Petition as being a strategic attempt to use Cisco’s petition as a “test case,” and do not consider factor 8 to weigh toward denial. Finally, reviewing factor 6, we do not find that granting Petitioner’s motion to join would cause an undue burden on the Board. Petitioner is serving as an “understudy” and thus, from our perspective, Petitioner’s presence does not change the existing Cisco IPR. Patent Owner argues that if Cisco were to settle then Petitioner would continue the proceeding. Opp. Mot. Join. 15. We do not see this as an undue burden in this situation. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder serves to lessen our burden (as well as Patent Owner’s) compared to the scenario of it filing its own unique petition. We do not see the present case as similar to the Apple case, in which a copycat joinder petition was denied. See Apple, IPR2020-00854, Paper 9. That case, in our view, turned on the fact that the petitioner had already filed a petition that was denied on the merits. See id. at 4 (“In effect, it would be as if [the petitioner] had brought the second challenge to the patent in the first instance,” and labeling this a “serial attack.”). The situation here is not analogous to the Apple case because this is Petitioner’s only petition against the ’436 patent. The Petition is not a “serial attack” on the ’436 patent, it is merely Petitioner’s statutorily required vehicle to join as a party to an existing petition. Accordingly, we do not find factor 6 to weigh towards denial. Reviewing the General Plastic factors as a whole, including proposed factor 8, we find no factors to weigh toward denial and decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,566,612
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Fortinet, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00099 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds and granted joinder to IPR2023-00673.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’436 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2

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

    “compressed, or use security protocols, then the packets transit the packet engine. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 49, 51, 53). Patent Owner argues that only the SA parameter association task in Pham may be offloaded. Prelim. Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38, 51). Patent Owner’s argument here implies that the filtering function remains at the ingress processor and that some packets will be filtered and never reach the packet engine. See id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 38); Ex. 1004 ¶ 38 (“In the preferred embodiments of the present invention, the ingress processors 30, 34 are tasked with filtering and routing functions . . . .”). The statement Patent Owner relies on is not in the same section as the one Petitioner relies on. In other words, it does not appear on this record that we can limit the disclosure of paragraph 51 based on the statements in paragraph 38. On this record, we are not persuaded that only the SA parameter association task can be offloaded. As Pham notes, tasks can be moved between processors to perform load balancing. Ex. 1004 ¶ 54. We see no disclosure that prevents certain tasks from being load balanced or otherwise tasked to the security processor.” slip op. at 16

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

    “find them persuasive on this record. Id. at 32–33. At a high level, Patent Owner’s arguments are that Petitioner’s modification to Pham would “increase[] complexity and resources.” Id. at 33. On this record, this argument is unpersuasive because even if the addition of Wu’s intrusion detection system was somehow more complex, the reason to combine it is to gain certain beneficial features. See, e.g., Pet. 30–31. Patent Owner’s arguments do not show that the alleged increase in complexity would somehow dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art from including these beneficial features. See, e.g., Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (alteration in original); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”).” slip op. at 17

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “based on the related district court matters identified above. Opp. Mot. Join 4–12. Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3. Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue in the copending district court litigation the specific ground asserted in the petition, or any other ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., grounds that could have been raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patent or printed publications)” (Reply Mot. Join 4–5), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,685,436

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.