• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2026 · IPR2025-00712 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 were not shown unpatentable because Walker was not prior art and Kelly did not teach limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii].

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “b) Walker Priority Date Under Dynamic Drinkware, the Petitioner is required to show that “the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application.” In re Riggs, 131 F.4th 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Thus, Petitioner must show that (1) at least one claim of Walker is supported by its provisional (U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/378,289 (the “’289PROV”) and (2) the specific subject matter relied upon as prior art is supported by the ’289PROV. Id. Petitioner does provide a detailed explanation about how the ’289PROV supports claim 1 of Walker. See Reply 5–10. However, as Patent Owner argues, Petitioner fails to show that the ’298PROV provides support for the specific subject matter relied on in Walker. See Sur-Reply 3–9. Petitioner only explains how the ’298PROV discloses “predetermined criteria” but does not provide any other explanation for how the other subject matter relied on in Walker is supported by the ’298PROV. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Walker is entitled a priority date before May 1, 2003. See Riggs, 131 F.3d at 1384 (noting while “a prior art patent or published application cannot be accorded the benefit of its provisional application’s filing date absent a showing that the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application,” the challenger must also show that “the specific portions of the patent specification identified and relied on” to demonstrate purported invalidity have written description support).” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “evidence that Kelly teaches limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. As Patent Owner persuasively argues, “the recorded information regarding particular game play events” of limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii] refers to “memory to . . . record game play information regarding particular game play events” in limitation 1[b.ii], but Petitioner does not map “the game play events” identified in limitation 1[b.ii] to limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. In its Reply, Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion, but largely reiterates its arguments from the Petition. However, none of these arguments or evidence demonstrates that the “game play events” in limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii] are same the “game play events” that are allegedly stored in limitation 1[b.ii]. Even if we accept Petitioner’s contention that it was not identifying button presses or the “game identifier,” but rather includes “game states and game events in the game process,” Petitioner provides no evidence or even arguments that what it has identified here relates to what it has identified for limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. See Pet. 29–33 (citing Ex. 1005, 25:23–24, 26:59–27:1, 32:27–33, 37:1–10, 38:66–39:7 40:33–45, 56:49–51, 57:27–33). For these reasons, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches or suggests limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kelly. 2. Claims 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 Claims 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 all depend (either directly or indirectly) from claim 1. See PO Resp. 16 (explaining that the arguments for independent claim 1 also apply to the dependent claims inherent the deficiencies asserted with respect to the independent claims). We find Patent Owner’s arguments availing, as explained above. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 would have been obvious over Kelly.” slip op. at 44

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “programmable variable parameter sets to achieve the mandated parameters,” we find that Patent Owner sufficiently explained “the notes from the 12/4/02 meeting reflect that the inventors proposed that their invention could raise the global payout percentage ‘to 75%’ – a mandated parameter – by ‘increas[ing] % of wins by the level 2,’ i.e., a secondary game level – a variable parameter.” See PO Resp. 28–32, 37, 38; Ex. 2016; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 23–24, 41–42; Ex. 2012 ¶ 90, 63–64. Indeed, Mr. Crevelt confirmed that that a POSITA would unequivocally regard disclosure of “win rate[s]” and “global payout percentage[s]” as disclosing the claimed “mandated parameters” that are achieved by utilizing variable parameters. See Ex. 2020, 15:7–18:4, 19:14–21:16, 24:25–25:15 (global payout percentages), 21:18– 24:24 (win rates).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 11,393,279 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,393,279
• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2026 · IPR2025-00708 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 were not shown unpatentable over Kelly or Walker and Schneier.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id. Based on the testimony of Mr. Crevelt, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering, with at least three years of experience in game development. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–65). Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Id. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted above is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’336 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the record. Patent Owner states that “[f]or the purposes of this response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ proposed level of skill, and under any level of skill a POSITA would not understand the asserted Grounds to raise any unpatentability issue,” and “this POR and supporting declarations apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” PO Resp. 8. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’336 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes in this case. See id. slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “b) Walker Priority Date Under Dynamic Drinkware, the Petitioner is required to show that “the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application.” In re Riggs, 131 F.4th 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Thus, Petitioner must show that (1) at least one claim of Walker is supported by its provisional (U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/378,289 (the “’289PROV”) and (2) the specific subject matter relied upon as prior art is supported by the ’289PROV. Id. Petitioner does provide a detailed explanation about how the ’289PROV supports claim 1 of Walker. See Reply 6–12. However, as Patent Owner argues, Petitioner fails to show that the ’298PROV provides support for the specific subject matter relied on in Walker. See Sur-Reply 3–8. Petitioner only explains how the ’298PROV discloses “predetermined criteria” but does not provide any other explanation for how the other subject matter relied on in Walker is supported by the ’298PROV. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Walker is entitled a priority date before May 1, 2003. See Riggs, 131 F.3d at 1384 (noting while “a prior art patent or published application cannot be accorded the benefit of its provisional application’s filing date absent a showing that the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application,” the challenger must also show that “the specific portions of the patent specification identified and relied on” to demonstrate purported invalidity have written description support).” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches limitation 1[f]. As Patent Owner persuasively argues, “the game play events” of limitation 1[f] refers to “game play events” in limitation 1[d], but Petitioner does not map “the game play events” identified in limitation 1[d] to limitation 1[f]. In its Reply, Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion, but merely reiterates its arguments from the Petition. See Reply 23–24, 26. However, none of these arguments or evidence demonstrates that the “game play events” in limitation 1[f] are same the “game play events” that are allegedly stored in limitation 1[d]. Even if we accept Petitioner’s contention that it was not identifying button presses, but rather includes “game states and game events in the game process,” Petitioner provides no evidence or even arguments that what it has identified here relates to what it has identified for limitation 1[f]. See Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1005, 25:23–24, 32:27–33, 40:33–45, 56:49–51). For these reasons, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches or suggests limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kelly. 2. Claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 Claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 all depend from claim 1. See PO Resp. 16 (explaining that the arguments for independent claim 1 also apply to the dependent claims inherent the deficiencies asserted with respect to the independent claims). We find Patent Owner’s arguments availing, as explained above. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 would have been obvious over Kelly.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,529,336 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,529,336
• Microsoft Corporation v. X1 Discovery, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00253 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the evidence did not establish a reason to combine the references or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Mr. Haeberli’s formulation, finding it to be consistent with the evidence of record at this stage of the proceeding, including the asserted prior art and the ’035 patent. D.I. 8. Following a review of the full record, we agree with Mr. Haeberli’s statement that Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is “not meaningfully different” from Mr. Haeberli’s for the purposes of this proceeding. We continue to view Mr. Haeberli’s proposed definition as consistent with the ’035 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below. However, our analysis of the issues below would have been the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition. C.” slip op. at 11

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

    “In our Institution Decision, we construed the claim term “string separator character” to mean “a single-character string separator,” and invited the parties to raise any issues they had with this construction in future briefing. D.I. 10. Patent Owner subsequently indicated that it agreed with this construction. See PO Resp. 8. Petitioner did not raise any objections to this construction (see generally Pet. Reply). Accordingly, and in the absence of any dispute, we construe “string separator character” to mean “a single-character string separator.” Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner ask us to adopt explicit constructions of any other claim terms. See Pet. 14, PO Resp. 8–9; Pet. Reply 1–23; PO Sur-reply 2–7. We also find that the issues in dispute can be resolved without construing any other claim terms. Accordingly, we do not adopt explicit constructions of any other claim terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms … that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D.” slip op. at 12

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

    “search functionalities disclosed in the Lotus Notes References and Raskin are materially different in such a way as to render combining them anything but simple and straightforward.” See PO Resp. 26–27. Indeed, Petitioner has given little or no explanation of how one of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would have taken the “idea of incremental search” and applied it to Lotus Notes. See, e.g., Ex. 2021, 116:20–117:17 (Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Terveen, testifying that “Raskin is not explicitly talking about searching across a set of documents, but the teaching that I relied on in general from Raskin is the idea of incremental searching,” and “I did not have to talk about implementation level details or incorporating a particular implementation. That wasn’t necessary for my opinion.”). Raskin simply does not teach a mode of incremental searching that applies to the query-style, document-finding searching of the type Petitioner cites from Lotus Notes. See generally Ex. 1021; see also Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 34–35 (Mr. Haeberli contrasting the Lotus Notes searches cited by Petitioner with Raskin’s searches). Raskin even states that it is “difficult or impossible to implement incremental searches” using interface-building tools. Ex. 1021, 126; Ex. 2020 ¶ 60 (Mr. Haeberli’s testimony that this passage of Raskin “directly undermines Dr. Terveen’s suggestion that a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Raskin’s incremental search approach in the Lotus Notes system”).” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,370,035 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,370,035
• Microsoft Corporation v. X1 Discovery, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00254 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because Petitioner failed to establish motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “29. In my opinion, the POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of the Asserted Patents would have had a (1) a Bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as computer science, electric engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and (2) have 2–4 years of experience in working with computing devices and have an understanding of indexed search systems utilized by such computing devices. 30. I am aware that Petitioner has provided its own definition . . . . 31. I believe Petitioner’s definition is not meaningfully different from my definition of a POSITA. My opinions would not change regardless of which definition of POSITA is applied. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–31. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Mr. Haeberli’s formulation, finding it to be consistent with the evidence then of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’490 patent. Dec. 9. Following a review of the full record, we agree with Mr. Haeberli’s statement that Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is “not meaningfully different” from Mr. Haeberli’s for the purposes of this proceeding. We continue to view Mr. Haeberli’s proposed definition as consistent with the ’490 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below. However, our analysis of the issues below would have been the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In our Decision on Institution, the only term that we found it necessary to construe was the term “string separator character” in claim 1. We preliminarily construed this term to mean “a single-character string separator.” Dec. 11, 30–31. We invited the parties to address the appropriateness of this construction over the course of the trial. Id. at 11, 31. In its briefing, Patent Owner agrees with the Board’s preliminary construction, arguing that it is “consistent with the intrinsic evidence.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, claims 8 and 20). Patent Owner further argues that a person of ordinary skill would have understood a multi-character Boolean operator such as “AND” to be “a search syntax instruction rather than a string separator.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1059, 162; Ex. 2001 ¶ 112). Petitioner’s Reply Brief does not address the issue of claim construction. See generally Reply Br.; see also Pet. 11 (“Unless otherwise noted, Petitioner applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms below.”). Following our review of the full record, we determine that it is not necessary to construe this or any other claim term for the purposes of this Decision.2 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.). In our analysis below, we interpret the language of the claims according to its plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Having reviewed the evidence of record, we find Mr. Haeberli’s testimony to be more persuasive and better supported by the evidence. According to Dr. Terveen, “[r]obust programming languages such as C and C++, together with well-developed operating system and UI frameworks, . . . allowed an ordinary programmer to build a UI that supported incremental searching, as evidenced by the numerous prior art systems that implemented such functionality, including Entourage, Eudora, Emacs, Canon Cat, SwyftWare, and others. Ex. 1100 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1004, 8–9, 161; Ex. 1021, 125, 127, 129; Ex. 1039, 102–103; Ex. 1043, 385–389). The relevant question, though, is not whether it would have been possible to build a user interface that supported incremental search, but whether it would have been “simple and straightforward” to execute an incremental search of multiple partial search strings on large, indexed multi-file databases such as those described in the Lotus Notes references, as Dr. Terveen alleges. None of the prior art discussed in the “State of the Art” section of Dr. Terveen’s initial declaration, taken individually or together, discloses incrementally searching a plurality of files using two partial search strings. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–33, 37, 40; Ex. 2001 ¶ 100. Thus, creating a user interface might be “simple,” but the evidence suggests that the back-end execution of an incremental search is not. See, e.g., Ex. 1021, 126 (Raskin, concluding that “almost all interface-building tools make it easy to implement delimited searches and difficult or impossible to implement incremental searches”).” slip op. at 23

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

    “different approach from that taken in Lotus Notes. The difference between Raskin’s sequential scanning method and the index-based system described in Wilcox is that sequential scanning by definition can only scan one document at a time as each document is loaded into a “buffer.” See, e.g., Ex. 2020 ¶ 35. Lotus Notes, however, only needs to load the index into memory for a user to be able to locate the single index entry identifying all instances of an indexed term across all indexed files. In fact, Raskin acknowledges that indexing may be necessary to maintain an acceptable response time. Ex. 1021, 132 n.10; see also id. at 129 (indexing speeds search times). Mr. Haeberli’s third and final reason for concluding that one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Raskin’s incremental search with Lotus Notes is that at the time using incremental searches would have presented “extreme technical difficulties.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 101. Here again we find Mr. Haeberli’s explanation more persuasive than Dr. Terveen’s opinion that combining the teachings from Raskin with Lotus Notes’ teachings “would have required only simple and straightforward software modifications.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 80. According to Mr. Haeberli, “there are serious technical challenges with implementing the complex search strategies of the challenged claims in the systems on which Dr. Terveen relies.” Id. ¶ 96. As Patent Owner argues: searching across a set of files to find specific files requires the system to identify which files are in the set, access those files (which are often not loaded in active memory), search their contents, determine which files contain matches to search criteria, and then present results to the user; all tasks that do not exist in the same way (or at all) for a search confined to text in a single open file already loaded into memory. Sur-Reply 9; see Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 15, 35–36. There would have been other challenges as well. For example, “[t]he type of sequential scanning typically employed to search a single open document is very time and resource intensive if employed to search a large set of documents.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 15. Also, “[i]mplementing incremental search in the Lotus Notes indexed system would necessarily require a larger index, which would slow down, rather than increase the search speed.” PO Resp. 23; see Ex. 2020 ¶ 33. Finally, Raskin itself concludes that “even if incremental searching is advantageous, ‘almost all interface-building tools make it easy to implement delimited searches and difficult or impossible to implement incremental searches.’” Ex. 2001 ¶ 96 (emphasis added by Mr. Haeberli) (quoting Ex. 1021, 126). In short, Mr. Haeberli presents three significant reasons why there would have been no motivation or expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wilcox with those of Raskin. Dr. Terveen’s opinion to the contrary, on the other hand, is not supported by evidence. Dr. Terveen testifies that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to perform Lotus Notes’ multi-string search incrementally for the reasons stated by Raskin: speed, effectiveness, and ease of use.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 125–127). The evidence, however, not only fails to support Dr. Terveen’s testimony, but also demonstrates that one attempting to make the proposed combination would not have reasonably expected the proposed combination to result in greater speed or effectiveness.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,552,490 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,552,490
• Microsoft Corp. v. X1 Discovery, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00255 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 were not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because Petitioner did not establish a persuasive reason to combine the cited teachings with adequate factual support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not comment on Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill, or offer its own formulation in its Response. Patent Owner’s declarant, however, states: 29. In my opinion, the POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of the Asserted Patents would have had a (1) a Bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as computer science, electric engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and (2) have 2–4 years of experience in working with computing devices and have an understanding of indexed search systems utilized by such computing devices. 30. I am aware that [Petitioner] has provided its own definition . . . . 31. I believe [Petitioner’s] definition is not meaningfully different from my definition of a POSITA. My opinions would not change regardless of which definition of POSITA is applied. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–31. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation, finding it to be consistent with the evidence of record at this stage of the proceeding, including the asserted prior art and the ’139 patent. Dec. on Inst. 8. Following a review of the full record, we agree that Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is “not meaningfully different” from Patent Owner’s for the purposes of this proceeding. We continue to view Patent Owner’s proposed definition as consistent with the ’139 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below. However, our analysis of the issues below would have been the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner does not assert any explicit claim constructions. Pet. 12. In our Decision on Institution, the Board construed “string separator character” as “a single-character string separator.” Dec. on Inst. 10, 28–29. Patent Owner explicitly agreed with this construction in its Response (Resp. 8–9), and Petitioner offered no further comment in its Reply. Although no claim construction issue is squarely before us now, we maintain our prior construction of “string separator character,” and do not construe any further limitations. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that a problem with Petitioner’s combination is that it proposes to take the idea of incremental searching from Raskin and divorce it from Raskin’s teaching of incremental searching. See PO Resp. 20 (arguing, “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] must consider all the teachings of a reference, and not pick out general ‘concepts’ disclosed in the art without considering the context in which they are used”); see also id. at 17–28 (setting out the whole argument); Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 39–62 (Patent Owner’s declarant explaining why Petitioner’s approach is “technically problematic”). Raskin’s incremental search is tied to finding and moving to character strings within a document. Ex. 1021, 125. For example, if a user were to type a string that was found in the text, “the instance [of that string] is selected and the cursor placed immediately after the end of the selection.” Id. The cursor can move about the text as characters of the search string are added or deleted. Id. at 125–126. Thus, Raskin discloses in-text search, even when searching across documents. Id. at 132 (“After the local document has been completely searched the search then proceeds through the following documents until the end of the folder is reached, when the search continues from the beginning of the first document in the folder until the current, already searched document is reached. After cycling through the folder, the next larger domain is treated similarly, and so forth.”). Raskin even distinguishes its text-finding search from Lotus Notes’ document-finding search, stating that “[i]t is usually easy to tell in what domain you are searching, because you see the results in context; what you see is not just a list of file names, as with many present search systems.” Id. (emphasis added); see also PO Sur-reply 16 (citing the same page and arguing that “Raskin recommends doing the opposite of what is claimed”). This context gives credence to Patent Owner’s argument that “the search functionalities disclosed in the Lotus Notes References and Raskin are materially different in such a way as to render combining them anything but simple and straightforward.” PO Resp. 26–27. Indeed, Petitioner has given little-to-no explanation of how one takes the “idea of incremental search” and applies it to Lotus Notes. Ex. 2021, 116:20–117:17 (Petitioner’s declarant testifying that “Raskin is not explicitly talking about searching across a set of documents [at once], but the teaching that I relied on in general from Raskin is the idea of incremental searching,” and “I did not have to talk about implementation level details or incorporating a particular implementation. That wasn’t necessary for my opinion.”). Raskin does not teach a mode of incremental searching that applies to the query-style, document-finding searching in Lotus Notes. See generally Ex. 1021; see also Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 34–35 (Patent Owner’s declarant contrasting Lotus Notes and Raskin). Raskin even states that it is “difficult or impossible to implement incremental searches” using standard interface-building tools. Ex. 1021, 126; Ex. 2020 ¶ 60 (Patent Owner’s declarant stating that this passage “directly undermines [Petitioner’s declarant’s] suggestion that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to implement Raskin’s incremental search approach in the Lotus Notes system”).” slip op. at 34

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

    “Entourage and what True is doing and how it is doing it, Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to use True’s two search strings “to provide more targeted searching, as was common sense and well known in the art.” Pet. 60 (citing Pet. 8–9; Ex. 1057, 27); see also id. at 56, 66 (similar). But we are not persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that True provides more targeted searching or better search results when finding documents. True itself appears silent on the issue. Petitioner cites Exhibit 1057, but all that stands for is the general premise that doing a Boolean AND search in a Web search engine reduces the number of search results. Ex. 1057, 27. Petitioner does not allege that True uses a Boolean AND search of the kind discussed in Exhibit 1057. Thus, the statement in Exhibit 1057 regarding reducing the number of search results is tied to a manner of performing Boolean searches, something Petitioner does not use to modify Entourage. In other words, Exhibit 1057 is of little relevance to the Entourage-True combination, and does not serve as a factual underpinning in support of Petitioner’s reasoning. Petitioner also cites to several other references that discuss Boolean-style searches, but these generic background disclosures do not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to use one or more features of the probabilistic-based interest level search from True in a document-finding application like Entourage. See Pet. 8–9 (string citing over a dozen references with no pinpoint citations). Accordingly, there appears to be little reason, absent hindsight, to incorporate some aspect of a text-as-proxy-for-sounds system like True into Entourage’s filter or Find feature to provide more targeted searching. Accord Ex. 2020 ¶ 120 (“Patent Owner’s declarant stating that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] working on the problem of searching large document collections would not look to [True,] a system designed for navigating imprecise transcriptions of single audio files, as the technical approaches and constraints are entirely different”). Patent Owner argues, and we agree, that another problem with Petitioner’s combination is that True does not appear to actually provide more targeted or better searching. PO Resp. 59–60 (“True’s search capabilities are inherently imprecise”) (citing Ex. 1009, 1:18–27; Ex. 2001 ¶ 137); see also Ex. 1009, 4:31–37 (explaining that True uses a speech recognition system that calculates confidence levels based on a “% likelihood that [a word] corresponds to the portion of the digitized audio [at a given time]”); Ex. 2020 ¶ 114 (Patent Owner’s declarant stating that “the purpose of True is not to definitively locate where a search string actually appears”). Petitioner does not explain what about True would make some aspect of Entourage’s filter or Find features more targeted. Even if it was known to use Boolean AND searches, for example, Petitioner is not citing True to modify Entourage to have a Boolean search. True uses an “interest level” search instead, which is more inclusive than a Boolean AND search (it adds together hits for “queen” OR “mother,” and may return hits containing neither). Ex. 1009, 5:29–50, Fig. 2 (showing results list 22 having several results which do not indicate any of the searched-for words); see Ex. 2020 ¶ 116 (Patent Owner’s declarant analyzing True’s interest level search would also include “text [that] does not show the query word”). Petitioner does not appear to be proposing to incorporate an interest level search or a Boolean-style search into the filter or Find features, and we are not persuaded that True in fact provides more targeted searching. Even if the quality of the transcripts in True happened to be perfect (see Pet. Reply 10, arguing that “True describes searching a text file that has 100% accuracy”), the fact remains that True attempts to find text in particular time windows using an interest level search based on the probability that a word or words were spoken in a given time window, which is completely different from what Entourage is doing with its search (see Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 114–116, 121). In its Reply, Petitioner states that True teaches “an incremental search for multiple search strings entered in a search field.” Pet. Reply. 10. This is a broad generalization of what True does, made with the benefit of hindsight, but as we have just explained, True’s interest level search is different from the kinds of searches done in Entourage or even the Boolean-style web searches performed in the background references. See, e.g., Ex. 1057, 27. This means it is not a matter of taking one known teaching and simply applying it to another system. True is doing something different, and it’s not clear how True’s search would actually provide “precise, targeted search results” (Pet. Reply 3) given that True appears to suggest a less-targeted search than claimed (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 29:62–63, claiming “identifying one or more documents included in both the first one or more documents and the second one or more documents”). See also Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 135 (Patent Owner’s declarant stating that “Entourage and True are directed to completely different purposes”), 136–138 (further analysis); Ex. 2020 ¶ 114 (stating that “the purpose of True is not to definitively locate where a search string actually appears”), ¶ 116 (stating that True returns text that does not even have the search word). True does not teach, suggest, or support Petitioner’s general premise that there is a benefit for an incremental search for multiple search strings entered in a search field or that such searches would provide precise, targeted search results. The problem with Petitioner’s analysis becomes more apparent when the Petition turns to the “string separator character” of claim 1. Notably, it is the claimed string separator character that converts a field with a single search string into a field with two search strings. See, e.g., Ex. 1098, 37:12– 41–4 (deposition of Patent Owner’s declarant) (discussing that a string separator character is what instructs the computer to break up one string of characters into separate strings of characters). Thus, one cannot discuss the string separator character apart from the limitations requiring first and second search strings in a single search field. Nevertheless, Petitioner treats the “string separator character” in isolation. See Pet. 61–62. Petitioner’s reason for modifying one or both of Entourage’s filter and/or Find feature(s) to have a string separator character is because “it was common to [use string separator characters].” Id. at 61. However, even if something was known, it does not mean it is obvious to incorporate it into one or both of these features in Entourage. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art”). Adding a string separator character to divide a single string into two separately searched strings changes how the software would function. See Ex. 1098, 39:22–40:8 (Patent Owner’s declarant testifying that software has to look for a string separator character in order to know multiple search strings were entered in the field). The space character in “Orson Welles,” used in the Advanced Find example in Barber, for example, is not a string separator character because one looking to exclude hits with “Orson Welles” is searching for the string “Orson Welles”—the space is another character in the name string whose inclusion serves a specific semantic purpose (delineating between a first and last name). See Ex. 2001 ¶ 151 (“there is no evidence that when a user types ‘Orson Welles’ into this Find command text box that a search is performed on ‘Orson’ and ‘Welles’ separately as opposed to searching on the full text string ‘Orson Welles.’”); Ex. 1006, 387 (discussing how exclude the specific person “Orson Welles” from the search, not to find someone having the first name “Orson” or the last name “Welles”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 144 (Petitioner’s declarant implicitly acknowledging that the space in “Orson Welles” is not a string separator character). Thus, the space character in “Orson Welles” does not signal to the computer to break the string up into two parts at the space and perform” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 9,633,139 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,633,139
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Fendgo, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00114 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable because DiPerna964 and Strack do not teach or suggest the panic button readying itself to perform the claimed functions.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “After review of the ’404 patent’s description, we find no disclosure that pressing the panic button together with another button causes the panic button to ready itself to perform functions (1) and (2) as recited in limitation 1[d]. The closest descriptions we find to limitation 1[d] are that the safety switch readies the panic button to contact 911 (Ex. 1001, 6:59–62), that the panic button may be activated by pressing the panic button with another button (id., 3:59–67, and that the panic button may start a speech recognition process that can trigger the device (id., 7:61–62). Consequently, claim 1 is itself the best source for determining what the claim language means. We determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of the “ready itself” feature of claim 1 is that the panic button “prepares itself to be triggered to perform the panic button functions (1) and (2).” Since the intrinsic evidence is sufficiently clear to discern the meaning of the “ready itself” limitation, we do not resort to extrinsic evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (explaining that extrinsic evidence is less significant than intrinsic evidence); Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Court of Appeals gives primacy to intrinsic evidence and resorts to extrinsic evidence only if consistent with intrinsic evidence); Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Court of Appeals stating that its “decision rests solely on the intrinsic evidence”).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “Thus, the ’353 application describes that moving the safety switch into position readies the panic button to contact 911, which is not the same as the panic button being activated to ready itself to perform functions (1) and (2) required by claim 1 of the ’404 patent. Patent Owner’s reliance on disclosures elsewhere in the ’353 application is unavailing. PO Resp. 5–8 (citing Ex. 1006, 15, 17, 19–21, 23, 25); PO Sur-Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1006, 15, 17, 19–20, 24–25)). For example, while the ’353 application does mention voice activation with a codeword and activation by depressing of the panic button together with another button (see, e.g., Ex. 1006, 17, 21, 24–25), it does not mention that depressing the panic button together with another button causes the panic button to ready itself to perform recited functions (1) and (2). The application explains that “[t]he [panic] button can send a signal to a controller inside the device to activate [the code word activation] process” and “[t]he [panic] button can start the speech recognition process in one embodiment, to trigger the device.” Ex. 1006, 25. But that describes readying the device for activation by the code word, not readying the button to perform the recited functions. The ’353 application also mentions the word “ready” in relation to using a self-defense mechanism such as pepper spray, which does not appear to be related the readying of the panic button recited in claim 1. Ex. 1006, 15, 19–20. Petitioner has thus met its burden to demonstrate that claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent lack written description support for a panic button adapted to “ready itself” to perform the recited functions because the limitation is not present in the ’353 application to which the ’404 patent claims priority.3 Pet. 8–10. The burden of production thus shifted to Patent Owner to demonstrate that the ’353 application has written description support for limitation 1[d], which it has not done on this record. PO Resp. 5–8; PO Sur-Reply 2–3.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “DiPerna964 discloses a separate “safety” switch that readies the panic button to contact 911 upon being pressed (Ex. 1028 ¶ 41), but there is no mention of pressing the panic button together with another button to cause the panic button to “ready itself” to perform panic button functions (1) dialing a public or private network for an emergency purpose and (2) activating the transmitting unit, as limitations 1[d] and 1[e] require. DiPerna964 mentions pressing two buttons together to activate the panic button (see, e.g., Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 17, 23–25, 27), but not to “ready itself” to perform recited functions (1) and (2). Petitioner relies on Strack’s triggering the collection of audio, video, and location data for transmission to a remote location as equivalent to a panic button readying itself to, when activated, perform the panic button functions (1) dialing a public or private network for an emergency purpose and (2) activating the transmitting unit. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–88). We do not agree with Petitioner’s contention because Petitioner fails to explain how Strack’s button press that collects and then transmits audio, video, and location data would ready the panic button to perform recited functions (1) and (2). It appears that Strack’s button press readies the device, not the button, to perform the functions. As neither DiPerna964 nor Strack nor their combination teach or suggest limitations 1[d] and 1[e], we determine it is unnecessary to proceed further with the obviousness analysis. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed.Cir.2006) (stating that we consider motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success only “if all the elements of an invention are found in a combination of prior art references”)).” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which appears consistent with the educational level, technology, problems and solutions identified in the ’404 patent and prior art references asserted by Petitioner. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level in this Decision.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 11,265,404 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,265,404
• Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2021-01213 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 12, 13, and 16–19 were not shown unpatentable because neither asserted combination taught routing each net in a subset in isolation of the other nets.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “the time the ’614 patent was filed. Pet. 11. For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert “adopt the [following] definition for the person of ordinary skill in the art”: a person with “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering or electrical and computer engineering or equivalent and two or more years of experience with CMOS VLSI (very large-scale integration) circuit design, electronic design 2 Patent Owner does not identify any secondary considerations to be considered. Accordingly, we do not consider this aspect of the obviousness analysis at this stage of the proceeding. automation for VLSI, or ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit) design fields.” Id. at 11; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70 (Robins Declaration). Petitioner notes that this assessment was presented to the district court by Patent Owner, but that Petitioner has also argued for a higher level of skill in the art. Id. Patent Owner and its declarant, Dr. Friedman, adopt this assessment. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 25–26). We accept the assessment offered by the parties as it is supported by both declarants and is consistent with the ’614 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 6

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

    “The term “global nets” is construed as “nets not contained wholly within any single tile on the chip.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1009, 2); Resp. 8; Ex. 2015, 3. The phrase “[e]ach of said global nets within said second subset routed by one of said threads in isolation of said second subset’s other global nets but in respect of the routes of said subset of global nets” is construed as “[e]ach global net of the second subset is independently routed by a respective thread, without reference to the routing of any other net within the second subset, and the resulting routing does not conflict with routings of the first subset of global nets.” Resp. 7; Ex. 2001, 13; Ex. 2020 ¶ 26; Reply 3–4. We apply the same standard that is used to construe a patent claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), and construe each claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the patent, and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent, as articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We do not expressly construe any claim terms beyond the extent necessary in our discussion of the parties’ arguments below.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s citations to Mehrotra illustrate that the nets in a first area are processed in isolation from a second area that is processed in parallel with the first area, but do not teach that each net within a given area is processed in isolation of others within that same area. Petitioner’s reasoning is based on the parallel processing of distinct areas. Petitioner attributes the lack of any need for communication between processors as resulting from the “separation distance” between “areas 92 and 96.” Thus, the benefits flowing from Mehrotra’s parallel processing; i.e., improving the speed of routing, are limited to processing areas in parallel, and are not taught to apply to nets within a single processing area. Furthermore, Dr. Robins’ testimony illustrates that the nets within a given area are processed sequentially, not in parallel. Dr. Robins states that the global nets are assigned to the processor for that area when that processor is available, i.e., sequential processing of global nets within an area. Ex. 1003 ¶ 154 (“Mehrotra therefore discloses issuing each global net of a subset to [a] thread (i.e., a processor) because the thread is available”); Ex. 1019 ¶ 26 (“Area 92 contains two traces [that are] assigned to a single processor[, which] would perform routing for a first one of the nets and would then become available to route the second trace”). Dr. Robins clearly states that the second trace is processed “after routing the preceding trace.” Id. Thus, Dr. Robins’ testimony concerning how traces (nets) within a subset are processed in Mehrotra (sequentially) contradicts Petitioner’s reasoning why Mehrotra’s traces would be routed in isolation (to gain the advantages of parallel processing). We further note that Petitioner characterizes Mehrotra’s subset as “those traces and subtraces contained in 92 and 96.” Pet. 35–36. Each of areas 92 and 96 are shown to have multiple traces or subtraces therein. Ex. 1004, Fig. 9. Thus, Petitioner’s subset requires plural traces (nets) within each area, and it is not sufficient that those traces in 92 are routed in isolation from those in 96 if the traces within each area are not routed in isolation from those in the same area (nor does Petitioner argue otherwise). In view of the foregoing, Petitioner’s argument based on Mehrotra’s” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,234,614 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,234,614
• Thorne Research, Inc v. Trustees Of Dartmouth CollegeNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 10, 2022 · IPR2021-00491 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 were not shown unpatentable because the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article and PCT Publication were not shown to be the work of another and thus were not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the evidence submitted by Patent Owner, we find Patent Owner has satisfied its burden of production to show the Cell Article is not prior art. We find the testimony of Dr. Brenner—as corroborated by the testimony and disclaimer of Dr. Bieganowski—to be persuasive evidence that the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article represent the work of Dr. Brenner alone. See In re Mathews, 408 F.2d 1393, 1396 (CCPA 1969) (finding applicant’s declaration and prior art inventor’s disclaimer sufficient to overcome a § 102(e) rejection).” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “Under § 120, a patent is entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed application if (1) the written description of the earlier filed application discloses the invention claimed in the later filed application sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 112; (2) the applications have at least one common inventor; (3) the later application is filed before the issuance or abandonment of the earlier filed application; and (4) the later application contains a reference to the earlier filed application. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 35 U.S.C. § 120 (2018). As discussed above, the ’807 patent meets all four criteria set forth above for each application in the priority chain of the PCT application listed on the face of the ’807 patent. Since the claim of priority arises under Section 120, the provisions of the Paris Convention and PCT do not apply.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the evidence submitted by Patent Owner, we find Patent Owner has satisfied its burden of production to show the Cell Article is not prior art. We find the testimony of Dr. Brenner—as corroborated by the testimony and disclaimer of Dr. Bieganowski—to be persuasive evidence that the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article represent the work of Dr. Brenner alone. See In re Mathews, 408 F.2d 1393, 1396 (CCPA 1969) (finding applicant’s declaration and prior art inventor’s disclaimer sufficient to overcome a § 102(e) rejection).” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Although the laboratory techniques and starting materials used by Drs. Brenner and Bieganowski may have been known in the art, that is not the claimed invention. The invention as recited in claim 1 is directed a composition comprising isolated NR combined with one or more of tryptophan, nicotinic acid, or nicotinamide and one of the recited carriers, wherein the composition is formulated for oral administration and increases NAD+ biosynthesis upon oral administration. See Ex. 1001, col. 53. That the certain individual elements of the claimed composition may have been known elsewhere in the prior art does not lead to a conclusion that the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article are “by another.”” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,197,807 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,197,807
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com LLC et al. v. VB Assets, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2022 · IPR2020-01367 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–36 were not shown unpatentable because Kennewick did not teach the claimed ambiguity of words having different meanings in different contexts or the required context identification.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) “would have at least a Bachelor-level degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field in computing technology, and two years of experience with automatic speech recognition and natural language understanding, or equivalent education, research experience, or knowledge.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion, and Patent Owner and its declarant, Dr. Gershman, both apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Resp. 3. On this record and given the absence of any dispute, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 8

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In its Petition, Petitioner asks us to construe the “implicit hypothesis” term of claims 38, 40, and 42. Pet. 7–8. As discussed above, however, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer that eliminated these claims from this proceeding. Petitioner does not ask us to construe any terms in the remaining challenged claims. See id.; see generally Reply. Patent Owner also does not ask us to construe any claim terms. See generally Response. On this record, we decline to adopt constructions of any claims. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “Dr. Smyth’s declaration testimony about words having different meanings in different contexts is unpersuasive. Dr. Smyth testifies that the keyword “‘temperature’ could be interpreted as an outdoor temperature or as a body temperature depending on context.” See Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. This testimony is not persuasive because the word “temperature” refers to a measurement of warmth or coolness in both examples. That is, “temperature” has the same meaning in both contexts. Moreover, as Dr. Gershman points out, Kennewick does not teach or suggest a body temperature. Ex. 2001 ¶ 26. Dr. Smyth’s testimony is unpersuasive for this additional reason. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 69.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “forth by both parties, we are not persuaded that Kennewick teaches or suggests that the word “temperature” has different meanings in different contexts, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. See Resp. 4–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23–27. As detailed above, Patent Owner’s arguments and the supporting testimony of Dr. Gershman are consistent with the ordinary and customary language of the claims, the specification of the ’681 patent, and the disclosure of Kennewick. See id. In contrast, Petitioner’s arguments are inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language and the specification of the ’681 patent, and are not adequately supported by the disclosure of Kennewick. On this record, and having considered the evidence and arguments put forth by both parties, we also are not persuaded that Kennewick teaches or suggests that the phrase “what about flight one hundred and twenty too?” has different meanings in different contexts, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. See Resp. 6–7; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28–30. Moreover, even if the “flight” example did describe two contexts (one in which “flight 122” exists, and one in which it does not), Petitioner’s argument would still fail because Petitioner has offered no persuasive evidence that Kennewick teaches or suggests identifying one of these two alleged contexts based on Kennewick’s short-term shared information (dialog history) and long-term shared information (user profiles) as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. For the reasons explained above, Patent Owner’s arguments and the supporting testimony of Dr. Gershman are consistent with and supported by the claims and specification of the ’681 patent and the disclosure of Kennewick. See Resp. 4–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23–27. In contrast, Petitioner’s arguments are not consistent with or supported by the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, the specification of the ’681 patent, or the disclosure of Kennewick.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,073,681 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,073,681
• Nichia Corporation v. Document Security Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 16, 2021 · IPR2020-00908 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 8, and 11 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner’s planar construction of “mounting surface” was unsupported and the references did not disclose the claimed surface.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to Petitioner, “a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSA’) would have had at least a B.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field, and four [years of] experience designing or developing semiconductor—including LED—packages.” Pet. 13 (citing Shealy Decl. ¶ 31). Petitioner adds that “a higher education or skill level might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. at 13–14. Patent Owner does not propose an alternative assessment but states: “For the purposes of this IPR proceeding, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition of level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Baker Decl. ¶ 26). We apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself can reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 6

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

    “For purposes of this decision, we need only address the proper construction of “mounting surface,” which is disputed by the parties. Here, Patent Owner’s argument and evidence produced during trial show that Petitioner’s construction of “mounting surface” is not in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that “the mounting surface having a plurality of recesses,” as recited in claim 1, means that the recesses are in the mounting surface itself. PO Resp. 10–11. As we discuss further here, this requirement cannot be satisfied by a single planar surface, as used in Petitioner’s analysis. See, e.g., Pet. 18. Both parties acknowledge the argument that the claimed recesses could be interpreted in at least two ways: The recesses could be (1) only in the packaged body, excluding the contacts; or (2) in the device as a whole. PO Resp. 12 n.6; see also Pet. 18–19 (reviewing the second interpretation). Under both interpretations, Petitioner asks the Board to construe the mounting surface as a plane. See Pet. 18–19. We need not resolve which” slip op. at 10

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

    “For the reasons discussed in the Claim Construction Section, we disagree that the recited mounting surface can be a plane and still satisfy all the claim limitations. Supra § II.B. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s planar mounting surface does not include “recesses” at the side edges of the body as the claim requires. PO Resp. 15. Rather, the planar surface identified by Petitioner sits below the recesses in Kim’s device—i.e., “the depressions or indentations in molded resin package body 37” or the device as a whole. Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 3. Petitioner argues that, even under Dr. Baker’s analysis, Kim discloses the claimed mounting surface. Pet. Reply 10–11 (citing Ex. 1027). Dr. Baker’s analysis, however, is not consistent with the written description or the claims. Supra § II.B. In its challenge, Petitioner compares Kim’s device to the embodiment shown in Figure 4A of the ’040 patent. See Pet. 38–53. As discussed in the Claim Construction Section, however, of the challenged claim. Supra § II.B. Contrary to the claim’s requirement that the device itself comprise a mounting surface with “recesses and electrical contacts [that] are sized to provide offsets between said mounting surface and said electrical contacts,” both Kim’s device and the Figure 4A embodiment show recesses between the device and a flat surface on which the device is mounted. Compare Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 3, with Ex. 1001, Fig. 4A, 5:11–14. Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Kim. Claims 2, 3, and 11 also require a “mounting surface” because those” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “D. Obviousness over Kim and Shirahata Petitioner asserts that claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over Kim and Shirahata. Pet. 54–59. Claim 8 depends from claim 1. Ex. 1001, 12:3–5. This ground relies on Kim for the limitations of claim 1, including the recited “mounting surface.” Pet. 54–59. Petitioner has not shown that Kim teaches the mounting surface in claim 1. Supra § II.C. Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over Kim and Shirahata.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 6,879,040 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,879,040

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.