• Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 12, 2026 · IPR2025-00070 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,954,872 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,954,872
• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01187 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 8–11, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Ingle and Hasei; claims 3, 5, and 6 were not shown unpatentable because the Hanamura-based grounds lack the claimed trench.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “isolation, rather than in the claims’ context, and in light of the ’492 patent’s specification. In the trench/layers context of the ’492 patent, the word in requires more than it does in the circle/square context.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Physics, or a comparable field of study, and at least three years of research or industrial experience with semiconductor (organic or inorganic) optoelectronic devices and/or lighting or displays. An individual with additional education could have less research or industrial experience and vice-versa. Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed definition because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “rather than the combination of Ingle’s capacitor and Hasei’s droplet discharge application that Petitioner asserts. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Even if Ingle falls short of teaching structured application for its capacitor’s cathode, as Patent Owner argues, that does not undermine Petitioner’s challenge because Petitioner proposes using Hasei’s structured application (i.e., a droplet discharge device) to form the cathode of Ingle’s capacitor. See Pet. 24–25. Patent Owner’s additional argument that “Hasei contains no discussion of forming capacitors” (PO Resp. 36; see PO Sur-reply 17–18) is similarly flawed—it attacks Hasei individually, while ignoring Ingle’s capacitor teaching. We agree with Petitioner—the combination of Ingle and Hasei teaches structured application of the capacitor’s cathode. In addition, we disagree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner provides no reason why a POSITA would have extended Hasei’s method for producing its OLED to a capacitor.” PO Resp. 36; see PO Sur-reply 17 (asserting “pure conjecture”). To the contrary, as noted above, Petitioner explains, with relevant support from Hasei, that its structured application method reduced electrode-material waste and shortened manufacturing times as compared to photolithography. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 5, 7). Given those benefits, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support that its proffered combination would have been obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 9,257,492 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,257,492
• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2026 · IPR2024-01094 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Ma; claims 3 and 4 were not shown unpatentable over Werner.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’223 patent would have had a university degree in chemistry and additional expertise or a second university degree in the field of electrical engineering, particularly optoelectronics, or alternatively a university degree in electrical engineering and additional expertise or a second university degree in the field of chemistry. The person of ordinary skill in the art has spent several years studying the structure and function of organic optoelectronic components, in particular OLEDs, and has detailed knowledge of the chemical structure of light-emitting organic layers and the transport of charge carriers to these layers. In this respect, the person of ordinary skill in the art works at the interface between electrical engineering/physics (charge carrier transport and light emission processes in optoelectronic components) and chemistry, in particular organic chemistry (materials and layer stack combinations suitable). Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–47). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention. See generally Resp. Neither party indicates that the result would change depending on the definition selected. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed definition, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references. See Ex. 1005, (code 57); Ex. 1007, 8107 (abstracts of the references asserted in the patentability challenges).” slip op. at 8

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

    “history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms generally are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention and within the context of the entire patent disclosure. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party indicates that an express construction for any claim term is necessary to resolve the disputes at hand. Pet. 15; see generally Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision. In our analysis of the challenges, however, we discuss the meaning of the terms “metal complex” and “central metal atom,” which appear in claim 1 (Ex. 1001, 19:19–20) to the extent necessary to resolve Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner fails to establish that Ma invalidates claim 1. See Resp. 53, 56–58.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “Whether Ma qualifies as a “printed publication” involves an inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is considered “publicly accessible” upon a satisfactory showing that the document has been “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence[] can locate it.” Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29, 10– 11 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on the information presented, we find Petitioner has the better position. Patent Owner admits that joint vaporization means “two materials vaporize together.” Reply 21 (quoting Resp. 54). As Petitioner argues, “This is what Ma discloses.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that Ma describes a “two-component” electron transport layer having a “thickness with one value.” Id.; see Ex. 1007, 811 (reporting a “co-deposited” application of “BPhen:LiQ” that is “50 nm thick”). Ma’s disclosure, thereby, strongly “indicates that the two components were vaporized together––as opposed to creating a ‘macroscopically homogenous form’” prepared by sequentially vaporizing the individual components as Patent Owner “hypothesizes.” Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 42–44; Ex. 2041 ¶¶ 155–157); see Resp. 54– 55; see also Ex. 1007, 811 (Ma’s description of its device fabrication, appearing in the third paragraph of the experiments section). Petitioner further advances evidence that “[p]reparing a layer that is ‘macroscopically homogeneous’ but potentially microscopically heterogeneous,” as Patent Owner postulates, “would introduce excessive variability and render the data noncomparable and unreliable, thus undermining the experiment’s purpose.” Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 44); see Resp. 54–55. Patent Owner presents no counterargument or evidence that is persuasive to undercut Petitioner’s reasoning or evidence on that point. See Sur-reply 19–22. Petitioner also argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized “that vaporizing materials together would best achieve Ma’s objective of assessing the current density using different Liq doping percentages.” Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1007, 811; Ex. 1020 ¶ 51). Here again, Petitioner’s evidence on point stands uncontested. See Sur-reply 19–22 (declining to contest that point). On this record, therefore, we agree with Petitioner that, as to the relevant disclosure in Ma, “the most natural interpretation of ‘co-deposition’ for forming a layer, particularly when there is nothing to indicate that the materials” are “vaporized sequentially,” is that the materials are co-deposited by joint vaporization. Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 46–51). We further agree that, “[u]nder a preponderance standard, Ma’s disclosures are sufficient to render joint vaporization at least obvious.” Id. For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Ma discloses joint vaporization as required by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,558,223 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,558,223
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2022-01248 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14–21 and 23–26 are unpatentable under §103; claims 1–13 and 27–30 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish multiplexing.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill and does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’653 patent and the cited prior art, we adopt it. C.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Claim Construction Petitioner states that “no formal claim constructions are necessary in this proceeding.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner does seek an express construction of any claim term, and we thus conclude that we need not expressly construe any terms to resolve the issues before us. 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 10

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

    “d. Multiplexing Being “Well-Known” Petitioner additionally argues that multiplexing techniques were well- known. See Pet. 34; Pet. Reply 18. Even if that is correct, however, it is insufficient because Petitioner must show that it would have been obvious to modify Yegoshin to add multiplexing, and merely establishing that multiplexing was known in other contexts is insufficient to show how or why Yegoshin should be modified.” slip op. at 22

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “Patent Owner filed an opposition to the motion. See Paper 24. Patent Owner contends that the declaration is untimely and unfairly prejudicial because it circumvents our word count limitations and amounts to an additional brief because it analyzes claim construction and includes new cites to the record. See id. at 2–10. Having reviewed the parties’ positions, we grant the Motion. We note, however, that in view of the full record, and for the reasons below, our determination would not change even if we denied the motion. B.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,842,653 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,842,653
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2022-01249 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14–15, 17–21, and 27–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 1–13, 16, and 26 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “A. Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information” slip op. at 7

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

    “agree that “Yegoshin’s phone is configured to switch between cellular and IP communication modes, and also ‘capable of taking some calls via cellular path while receiving other calls via IP path’” but that does not lead to the conclusion, or support, that “in order to receive calls on both cellular network and WLAN simultaneously or to switch between two networks, the phone includes multiplexing of the signals communicated on two network paths.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 126 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:18–22, 5:33–65), 127 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:33–65; Ex. 1006, 1:6:12, 1:54–60, 3:53–61). The declarant’s citations to the record also do not support that Yegoshin’s “phone includes multiplexing of the signals communicated on two network paths.” Ex. 1004, 3:18–22, 5:33–65; Ex. 1006, 1:6:12, 1:54–60, 3:53–61.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 9,019,946 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,019,946
• Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp Computing AsSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2023 · IPR2019-00561 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claim 16 was held unpatentable as obvious over APA and Sikdar; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable over Sikdar and Wright.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner contended “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’272 patent (i.e., May 30, 2007) . . . would have had a Bachelors’ degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a comparable field of study, plus at least two years of professional experience with computer security systems and networks, or the equivalent.” Pet. 8 (citing Jakobsson Decl. ¶ 49). In our Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of the person of ordinary skill over an alternative formulation by Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic. FWD 17. However, we decided that we would reach the same result even under Dr. Medvidovic’s alternative formulation. Id. The level of ordinary skill adopted by us has not been further disputed by the parties, nor is it discussed in the Federal Circuit’s Decision. We therefore apply the same formulation for the reasons given in our Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that in Petitioner’s analysis of claim 16, “Petitioner reads out any distinctions between ‘at least a subset’ and ‘a subset.’” PO Resp. 45. Petitioner responds that “[t]he Board should reject Patent Owner’s argument that ‘the subset’ must be a ‘proper subset,’ i.e., a set that is less than the full set of outgoing data.” Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner cites dictionary definitions and other additional authorities to support this conclusion. Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing, e.g., Exs. 1022, 1023, 1024). For example, A Dictionary of Computing defines “subset” as “[a] set T whose members are all members of S,” and contrasts this with a “proper subset.” Ex. 1023, 3. Petitioner further points out that the antecedent basis of “at least a subset” for “the subset” in claim 16 supports its construction. Pet. Reply 6. In our Final Written Decision, after considering Petitioner’s evidence and the language of the claim, we found that the references to “subset” in claim 16 should be construed broadly enough to read on providing any portion of the outgoing data, up to and including all the data, and not a proper subset. FWD 24–25. For the reasons summarized above and those given in our Final Written Decision, we find that the term “subset” in claim 16 does not limit the claim to a “proper subset,” i.e., the claimed subset may include all the members of the set.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Applying the Federal Circuit’s “flexible” standard, we find that for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates a motivation to combine Sikdar and the APA, as proposed by Petitioner, with a reasonable expectation of success. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments and find that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add Sikdar’s NAT/PAT capability to the prior art network system of Figure 18, disclosing a software-based firewall. Pet. 55–58; Pet. Reply 23–25. As Petitioner points out, Sikdar’s RSP “does not include any NICs . . . , which are a separate hardware component.” Pet. Reply 24. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s argument is not convincing. More importantly, however, Patent Owner’s argument fails because in Ground 3, Petitioner does not propose combining “any device containing two NICs with the APA.” Id. Petitioner proposes combining “the RSP’s NAT/PAT functionality with the APA.” Id. at 24–25 (citing Pet. 55–58) (emphasis added). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).” slip op. at 34

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

    “non-obviousness, including long-felt need, failure of others, and skepticism by experts in the industry. PO Resp. 50–52. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Before reaching a decision on obviousness of claim 16, we must weigh these secondary considerations. In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1075–76 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). To determine whether the patentee has met that burden, we consider the correspondence between the objective evidence and the claim scope. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). We concluded, in our Final Written Decision, that Patent Owner had failed to meet its burden. FWD 47–50. We agreed with Petitioner that Patent Owner had failed to establish the required nexus to its claims. Id. at 49. We agreed also that Patent Owner had not provided convincing evidence supporting the existence of such objective indicia. Id. We find that, for the reasons given in our Final Written Decision, which we adopt for this Final Written Decision on Remand, Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary factors is insubstantial and unconvincing, and we therefore give it minimal weight in considering the obviousness of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,365,272 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,365,272
• BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00641 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures. For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that together, the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 discloses the source electrode and the bottom portions of Torii’s electrode 13 disclose the conductive portions recited in claim 4.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Hebinuma teaches the oval trenches recited in claim 6. See Ex. 1027, Fig. 9. In addition, we agree that Petitioner’s proposed combination would have been obvious because it amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known element for another, i.e., Hebinuma’s elliptical trenches for Torii’s rectangular ones. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Thus, with the analysis outlined above, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that its proffered combination would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. See id. at 418. Patent Owner raises several arguments in contesting Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, none of which we find persuasive. For example, we disagree with Patent Owner that Torii and Hebinuma are not analogous art because a skilled artisan “would not have looked to Hebinuma to improve on Torii.” PO Resp. 72–76. The ’867 patent, Torii, and Hebinuma are all in the same field of “power semiconductor device[s] having a trench gate structure.” Ex. 1001, 1:5–8; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 1–3; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 1–4. Thus, Torii and Hebinuma are analogous to the ’867 patent. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that one skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success because Hebinuma’s oval-shaped trenches were “substantially more challenging” than Torii’s “well-known and well-studied” rectangular-trench solution. PO Resp. 77 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 128–130). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art could reasonably expect success because the change “requires only minor changes to the photolithography mask” (Pet. 72; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 364), and because both Torii and Hebinuma expressly teach different trench shapes (see Ex. 1030 ¶ 116 (teaching that “the corner portion of the aperture . . . may be rounded”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 49 (teaching that “the contact trench Tc can be formed under similar conditions . . . with the exception of changing the patterning shape”)).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,247,867
• BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00631 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “petition in IPR2022-00631 (challenging the same claims of the ’867 patent on the same grounds), and a motion for joinder (seeking to join this proceeding as a petitioner). BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Arigna Tech. Ltd, IPR2022-00631 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2022), Papers 1, 2 (petition), 4 (motion for joinder). We granted institution in IPR2022-00631 and granted BMW’s motion for joinder. Paper 28 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2022). Similarly, General Motors LLC (“GM”) filed a petition in IPR2022-00641 (challenging the same claims of the ’867 patent on the same grounds), and a motion for joinder (seeking to join this proceeding as a petitioner). General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Tech. Ltd., IPR2022-00641 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2022), Papers 2 (petition), 3 (motion for joinder). We granted institution in IPR2022-00641 and granted GM’s motion for joinder. Paper 29 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2022). VW and Patent Owner then reached a settlement and this proceeding was terminated only as to VW. Paper 30 (PTAB Sept. 9, 2022). Accordingly, we refer to BMW and GM, collectively, as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because it mischaracterizes Petitioner’s reliance on Torii. Petitioner does not rely on a single structure as disclosing both the claimed source electrode and conductive portions. Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,247,867
• BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2021-01321 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures. For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that together, the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 discloses the source electrode and the bottom portions of Torii’s electrode 13 disclose the conductive portions recited in claim 4.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner raises several arguments in contesting Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, none of which we find persuasive. For example, we disagree with Patent Owner that Torii and Hebinuma are not analogous art because a skilled artisan “would not have looked to Hebinuma to improve on Torii.” PO Resp. 72–76. The ’867 patent, Torii, and Hebinuma are all in the same field of “power semiconductor device[s] having a trench gate structure.” Ex. 1001, 1:5–8; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 1–3; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 1–4. Thus, Torii and Hebinuma are analogous to the ’867 patent. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that one skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success because Hebinuma’s oval-shaped trenches were “substantially more challenging” than Torii’s “well-known and well-studied” rectangular-trench solution. PO Resp. 77 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 128–130). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art could reasonably expect success because the change “requires only minor changes to the photolithography mask” (Pet. 72; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 364), and because both Torii and Hebinuma expressly teach different trench shapes (see Ex. 1030 ¶ 116 (teaching that “the corner portion of the aperture . . . may be rounded”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 49 (teaching that “the contact trench Tc can be formed under similar conditions . . . with the exception of changing the patterning shape”)).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,247,867
• Cloudflare, Inc. / Splunk Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 18, 2022 · IPR2022-00228 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3, 9–13, 19–24, 29–33, and 39–44 are unpatentable under §103; claims 17, 18, 37, and 38 are not shown unpatentable over Yung alone.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer science, or comparable subject” and “3–5 years of academic or industry experience in computer networking or comparable industry experience.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). In the Institution Decision, we adopted this articulation of the level of ordinary skill. Inst. Dec. 15. At trial, neither party disputed our preliminary finding. See PO Resp.; Pet. Reply. We remain persuaded that this articulation of the level of skill in the art is supported by the ’593 patent, the asserted prior art, and Dr. Jeffay’s testimony. See Inst. Dec. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). Accordingly, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer science, or comparable subject and 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in computer networking or comparable industry experience.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “1. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends the challenged claims include means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and for each, Petitioner identifies a construction for use in this proceeding. Pet. 11– 14.12 Petitioner submits that no other terms require construction for purposes of this proceeding. Id. at 12. In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner that the identified limitations are means-plus-function limitations. Inst. Dec. 16 (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”)). We also stated that we were persuaded that Petitioner had correctly identified the recited functions and the components in the Specification that perform those functions. Id. at 16– 17. As a result, we preliminarily adopted the following constructions: Limitation” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Instead, Patent Owner points to the Specification, but this also fails to support Patent Owner’s contention. Although claims are read in view of the Specification (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315), they are not limited to the embodiments disclosed in it (id. at 1323). Patent Owner identifies (and we perceive) no passage in the Specification that could be read as redefining this claim phrase or disavowing part of its scope. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In fact, the passages cited by Patent Owner are directed to the handling of a single flow, and none expressly indicates that an identical method must be used for each flow processed. See Ex. 1001, 6:25–31, 7:51–52, 8:12–17. Thus, we determine that the Specification does not justify importing the limitation proposed by Patent Owner into the claims. Accordingly, having reviewed the intrinsic record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that claims 9 and 29 require computing a badness factor for each flow or all flows; rather, this claim limitation may be satisfied by computing a badness factor for a single flow.” slip op. at 12

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

    “3. Other constructions The parties do not propose constructions for any other terms or phrases. See Pet. 11–14; PO Resp. Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms or phrases. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,243,593 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,243,593

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.