• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00711 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 11–13, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 29 are unpatentable as obvious over Kelly, Kelly and Paulsen, or Walker and Schneier.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art There is no evidentiary dispute about the level of ordinary skill in the art.7 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. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–103). 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 ’164 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the record.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner argues that it is not necessary for the Board to provide an express construction for any claim term because the Petition “establishes the prior art meets each claim limitation under any reasonable construction.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner similarly submits that “[t]he Board need not construe any terms at this stage, because under any reasonable construction of the claim terms, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed features.” Resp. 8–9. Patent Owner notes, however that “it has relied on the plain meaning of ‘frequency of play’ in Claim 7.” Id. at 9. We agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision because, even were we to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered plain meaning of “frequency of play,” Petitioner has demonstrated that the prior art renders obvious this claim limitation. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing that Kelly renders obvious the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 11–13, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 29. Resp., passim; Tr. 50:4–13.8 We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and 8 Patent Owner argued in its Preliminary Response that Kelly does not disclose limitations [1.c.iii] and [1.c.v]. Prelim. Resp. 10–12. In our Institution Decision, we did not find these contentions persuasive based on the initial record. Dec. 20–24. Patent Owner has not presented these or any other arguments contesting Ground 1 as to claim 1 in its Response. Resp., the evidence and, based on that analysis, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Kelly renders obvious the subject matter recited in these claims.” slip op. at 17

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

    “and Paulsen render obvious claims 2 and 4. Pet. 36–40. Petitioner submits that to the extent Kelly’s player account is not player’s club information or information on non-cash amounts, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement these features based on the teachings of Paulsen. Id. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Paulsen teaches player tracking cards and player tracking programs including player tracking points. Id. at 38–40 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 8, 9, 49). Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to add these features to Kelly’s system to provide a more detailed view of tracking play, which would allow for rewarding patronage and engagement. Id. at 36–37, 39–40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 264; Ex. 1007 ¶ 10). Paulsen discloses a “gaming machine bonusing method utilizing a player tracking card.” Ex. 1007, code (54). Paulsen discloses that player tracking programs and player tracking cards were used in the art to provide rewards, or “comps,” to players based on the player’s level of patronage (e.g., to the player’s playing frequency and/or total amount of game plays at a given casino). Id. ¶ 8. These rewards were intended to maintain a player’s interest in additional game play during a visit and provide loyalty incentives to players. Id. at ¶ 9.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,335,164 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,335,164
• Axon Enterprise, Inc. / Dedrone Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Airspace Defense, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00629 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Original claim 12 is not unpatentable; substitute claim 37 is added, while substitute claims 21–28 and 30–36 are denied as obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “F.3d at 1279–80, we begin our analysis with the Specification of the ’711 Patent. The Specification indicates when a UAV (such as the recited “reference aerial vehicle”) navigates autonomously, it flies without manual control, and can, for example, track and fly to a target using information captured onboard the vehicle itself. See Ex. 1001, 3:24–28 (“[I]t may not be desirable to manually control the interceptor aerial vehicle to follow the target UAV. In some embodiments, the interceptor aerial vehicle is able to autonomously track and fly to the target UAV using machine vision based on images captured by a camera of the interceptor aerial vehicle.”). The Specification also indicates that “autonomous” means more than just “automatic flight,” and clarifies that autonomous navigation occurs when a UAV that previously received a target location from an external source subsequently turns and flies itself towards the received location. See, e.g., id. at 4:15–17 (disclosing that the detected location of a target may be provided to an interceptor “to allow it to automatically and autonomously fly toward the direction of the detected location”); 15:64–16:3 (automatic and autonomous navigation occurs when an interceptor’s navigation component and/or flight controller receive the location of a target, and adjust the interceptor “to turn and fly towards the received location . . . based on the received location”); 16:49–60 (“For example, a flight direction and/or speed of an interceptor aerial vehicle are automatically and autonomously adjusted based on a location and size of the target within the captured image. . . . This allows the flight path of the interceptor aerial vehicle to be dynamically adjusted to track and follow a moving target.”).” slip op. at 11

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

    “have had reason to combine Beard and Laufer in the manner proposed by Petitioner, the combination would not satisfy the Autonomous Navigation limitation required by claim 12 because Laufer’s autopilot commands are generated by and transmitted from a remote command center (i.e., Laufer’s central controller 115). PO Resp. 15–16. In its Reply, Petitioner does not dispute that Laufer’s autopilot commands are generated by Laufer’s central controller 115, which is remote from the aircraft being controlled. See Reply 13–17. Petitioner asserts, however, that the combination still satisfies the Autonomous Navigation limitation because these autopilot commands are generated without human input. See id. Based on the complete trial record, Patent Owner’s arguments are persuasive. See PO Resp. 15–16; PO Sur-reply 42, 1–6; Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 84–87. The flight of Beard’s UAV 100 under the control of Laufer’s autopilot commands does not satisfy the Autonomous Navigation limitation of claim 12, as we have construed that limitation, because Laufer’s autopilot commands are generated at a location that is remote from UAV 100 (Laufer’s central controller 115.) See, e.g., Ex. 1010 ¶ 40 (“Central controller 115 uses autopilot command module 440 to generate autopilot aircraft commands”), ¶¶ 26, 30 (clarifying that central controller 115 and the controlled interceptor aircraft are separate devices that may communicate through a “wireless connection”), Fig. 4 (depicting “aircraft control commands 475” being generated externally from the depicted “Interceptor Aircraft”); see also Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 95–95. Petitioner never disputes that, in the proposed combination, Laufer’s central controller 115 would remain external to Beard’s UAV 100. See Reply 13–17. Instead, Petitioner relies on its proposed construction of the Autonomous Navigation limitation, which would have encompassed such an arrangement. See id. Our construction of the Autonomous Navigation limitation, which did not adopt Petitioner’s claim construction position, is dispositive of Petitioner’s argument. We thus determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 12 would have been obvious over Beard and Laufer.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “the legal requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4, 7–8. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Patent Owner has satisfied this burden. 1. Proposal of a Reasonable Number of Substitute Claims A motion to amend must “propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(B); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3) (“A motion to amend may cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.”). “There is a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable number of substitute claims per challenged claim is one (1) substitute claim.” Lectrosonics, IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 at 4; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3). Patent Owner has shown it proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims by proposing a single substitute claim for each of challenged claims 1–4, 8–11, and 13–20. MTA 1–2, Claims App. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally MTA Opp. We determine that Patent Owner meets this requirement. 2. Amendments Respond to a Ground of Unpatentability “A motion to amend may be denied where … [t]he amendment does not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i). Patent Owner has responded to the grounds of unpatentability involved in this proceeding by amending the claims in response to the Petition’s asserted prior art. See MTA 2, 25, Claims App. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally MTA Opp. We determine that Patent Owner meets this requirement. 3. No Enlargement of the Scope of the Claims An amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.121(b)(1)–(b)(2). Patent Owner asserts that the amendments in the Motion do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent because each proposed substitute claim “retains all of the limitations of the corresponding challenged claim, and each proposed independent substitute claim adds further limitations.” See MTA 2, Claims App. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally MTA Opp. We determine that Patent Owner meets this requirement. 4. No Introduction of New Matter An amendment may not introduce new matter. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3);” slip op. at 22

  • 112 supportDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the evidence and argument cited by both parties, we determine there is sufficient written description support for the disputed portions of limitations [37.e1], [37.e3,] and [37.e4]. The ’452 application discloses selecting between groups of processing schemes (e.g., algorithms) depending on a confidence level, where the groups are, for example: high cost, high robustness algorithms; medium cost, medium robustness algorithms; and low cost, low robustness algorithms. See Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 146–147. These schemes or algorithms may be neural networks. See, e.g., id. ¶ 50 (including neural network as a type of algorithm); see also id. ¶¶ 109–110); see generally MTA Opp 1 (not disputing that schemes may be neural networks). Specifically, the ’452 application describes “algorithms that process video frames of one or more video data streams,” and “produce a prediction of objects within the video f[r]ame, as well as a confidence number that is a measure of quality for that prediction.” Id. ¶ 141. The ’452 application also discloses the concept of switching between neural networks based on confidence levels. In particular, the ’452 application discloses that a “process cycles through the processing schemes to produce a detection of an object,” for example, where “if the confidence number is higher than an activation number, an action is performed to stop or change a running group (i) and select or switch to group (ii).” Id. ¶ 146. More particularly, “a processing scheme from the group of (i) High cost (low refresh rate), high robustness algorithm[s] can select a cheaper processing scheme from the group of (ii) Medium cost, medium robustness algorithms.” Id. The ’452 application additionally discloses that schemes or algorithms (e.g., neural networks) are applied to individual video frames, and that the confidence levels that determine which neural network will be applied in the future are also derived from individual video frames. For example, as discussed above, the ’452 application describes that “[t]he processing schemes produce a prediction of objects within the video f[r]ame, as well as a confidence number that is a measure of quality for that prediction.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 141 (emphases added). The ’452 application also describes selecting and applying an individual neural network, rather than only selecting and applying a group of processing schemes. For example, as highlighted above, the ’452 application describes that “a processing scheme from the” “High” group “can select a cheaper processing scheme from the” “Medium” group. Id. ¶ 146 (emphases added). In our view, these disclosures, read together, would reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the disputed subject matter described above. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,514,711 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,514,711
• Axon Enterprise, Inc. / Dedrone Holdings, Inc. v. Airspace Defense, Inc.Other
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00525 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Original claim 21 was canceled; the Board denied substitute claim 22 for new matter and held it obvious under §103 based on six combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “First, Patent Owner has not shown possession of the disputed feature of a “radio communication module [that] is configured to utilize a secure identifier, the secure identifier comprising a specified excitation.” In the ’406 application, the term “excitation” is used exclusively to refer to a light beam signal. See Ex. 2015, 7:8–13, 9:8–10, 23:9.2 The ’406 application discloses that an identification box on an aircraft may include both an RF module and a separate light sensor. See Ex. 2015, 7:3–11. But nowhere does the ’406 application describe receiving a light beam (e.g., an excitation) with the RF module of the identification box (as opposed to the light sensor), so as to provide support for proposed substitute claim 22’s recitation of a “radio communication module” configured to utilize “a secure identifier . . . comprising a specified excitation.” We disagree with Patent Owner that it suffices that one of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that these disclosures are equally applicable to the RF-only embodiments” (Reply 5). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement . . . that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). On this record, and having reviewed the ’959 Patent, the ’153 provisional, and the ’406 application, we find no evidence in those documents that the named inventor was in possession of the concept of a radio communications module “configured to utilize a secure identifier” where “the secure identifier compris[es] a specified excitation.” Second, setting aside the “radio communication module” in proposed substitute claim 22, Patent Owner also has not shown that the named inventor was in possession of the feature of a “secure identifier comprising a specified excitation.” Patent Owner’s argument that the ’406 application describes a light beam directed to a particular aircraft (see Reply 4–5) is 2 The same is true of the ’153 provisional. See Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 29, 34. unavailing. The fact that the properties of a particular light beam indicate that the light beam is intended for a particular aircraft does not demonstrate that the light beam is a “secure identifier,” as we have construed that term. Patent Owner has not identified any disclosure in the ’406 application of a “secure identifier” comprising a light beam, let alone that such light beam can be utilized by a “radio communication module.” The only references to “secure” identifiers in the ’406 application describe radio frequency signals. See Ex. 2015, 2:4–6, 15:21–17:12.3 Having reviewed the ’959 Patent, the ’153 provisional, and the ’406 application, we find no evidence in those documents that the named inventor was in possession of the concept of a “secure identifier comprising a specified excitation.”” slip op. at 15

  • ScopeDecided for patent owner

    “not impermissibly broaden the scope of the claims of the ’959 Patent. As Patent Owner suggests, there were no limitations in original claim 21 on the type of radio signal the radio communication module could receive, and so it follows that proposed substitute claim 22 does not now encompass receiving a broader set of radio signals. We see no basis for Petitioner’s argument that the past tense verb “received” limited original claim 21 to “signals of a compatible ‘type’ and ‘range.’” Opp. 7. Moreover, the claim language (with the proposed deletion shown double brackets) provides that “the radio communication module is configured to receive a [[received]] radio signal.” Any radio signal that the radio communications module receives would necessarily be a “received” radio signal. Thus, deleting the redundant word “received” does not enlarge the scope of this claim limitation. We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s suggestion that removing the term “received” broadens original claim 21 by deleting a requirement that the radio signal have already been previously received by the claimed device. See Sur-reply 9. Original claim 21 simply recited, using redundant language, that “the radio communication module is configured to receive a received radio signal.” Ex. 1001, 18:5–7. The most natural reading of this language is that the phrase “received radio signal” is just a description of a radio signal that is received by the recited radio communications module. Petitioner has cited no persuasive evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have counterintuitively interpreted this language to impose an additional requirement that the “received radio signal” must have been received twice—a first time by some other component of the device, and a second time by the recited radio communication module. Accordingly, we determine that the proposed amendment does not improperly broaden claim scope.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “572 U.S. 898 (2014). See Memorandum: Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021).4 Under Nautilus, a claim is indefinite if fails to “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” 572 U.S. at 910. We agree with Patent Owner that neither of the identified terms are indefinite. Regarding the term “low-altitude aircraft,” we determine the Specification provides a sufficient basis for understanding the scope and meaning of this term with reasonable certainty. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit has explained that, when a term of degree is recited in a claim, it is necessary “to determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” See Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.”). Here, the Specification describes the related art as including “small UASs (e.g., aircrafts up to 25 pounds flying up to 500 ft of the low altitude airspace).” Ex. 1001, 1:50–52. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the Specification that the cited disclosure provides an objective standard for determining the scope of a low-altitude aircraft as one that is designed to fly up to a maximum altitude of about 500 feet.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the following qualifications: [E]ither (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Aerospace engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the aerospace, avionics, telecommunications, or electronic device manufacturing industry, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in any of the above industries. Paper 13, 5 (citing Pet. 21). Patent Owner has not disputed this formulation; thus, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Paper 13, 10–11 n. 8.” slip op. at 23

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,713,959
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Fendgo, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00113 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–15 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 9, 11 over Zellner and Kim; claim 15 over Walker; and claims 9–14 over Martin and Kim, with claim 14 also over Martin, Kim, and Dixit.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not address, let alone dispute, Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which is consistent the problems, solutions, technology, and educational level set forth in the ’404 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. See generally PO Resp.; 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 10

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

    “Reviewing the written description, we find no lexicographical definition or disavowal related to “owner identification information” in the ’404 patent. Instead, we find the term mentioned in relation to embodiments and examples. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, code (57), 4:17–25. Claim 8 of the ’404 patent recites that “owner identification information includes a name and a description of the owner of the mobile device” but, as Petitioner notes, the doctrine of claim differentiation suggests the term as used in claim 1 should be construed more broadly. Paper 28, 2; Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Lab'ys, Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]his court strives to reach a claim construction that does not render claim language in dependent claims meaningless.”)). Patent Owner is correct that “owner identification information” in claim 1 of the ’404 patent must be construed to encompass the name and description of the mobile device’s owner, as recited in claim 8. Paper 29, 2. However, we decline to restrict the term to exclude other indicia that may identify the device owner because that is not warranted by the written description, claims, and file history of the ’404 patent. Consequently, we construe “owner identification information” to mean “information that identifies the owner of the mobile device” under its ordinary and customary meaning as set forth in the ’404 patent and its file history. As recited in claim 8 of the ’404 patent, the term includes, but is not limited to, the name and description of the mobile device owner.” slip op. at 12

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

    “have been aware of the need to implement techniques to reduce risk of false activation of panic button devices, and Zellner expressly recognizes this problem. Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1008, 13:40–42; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 242, 244). Petitioner asserts that Kim’s technique of requiring the user to press its device’s emergency key button a plurality of times was a known way to reduce false activations. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 245). Petitioner posits that a POSITA would have considered the combination of Zellner and Kim to amount to the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, as well as the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 246–247). These are recognized rationales supporting a motivation to combine. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Zellner’s device to require multiple button presses as taught by Kim in order to reduce false activations. Petitioner further contends that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Zellner’s panic button to require three presses for activation, and that examples of prior art showed how this could be done. Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 248–251). Since Kim expressly discloses implementation of this feature, we agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have expected success in combining Zellner and Kim. Ex. 1008, 13:40–42.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 11,265,404 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,265,404
• Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2023-01384 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Yoshida and Saxler; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “In light of the record before us, we determine that we do not need to reach a specific finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 13

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the “side surfaces” limitation and determined that it was not necessary to further construe this term because “[t]he parties do not dispute that the language ‘side surfaces extending horizontally’ encompasses a gate material with sloped side surfaces as depicted in Figure 5 of the ’335 patent.” Inst. Dec. 11–16 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). We invited the parties to address this limitation further during the course of this trial, but neither party provided additional evidence or argument regarding the “side surfaces” limitation. Inst. Dec. 16; see generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-reply. Accordingly, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision that we do not need to construe the “side surfaces” limitation. Inst. Dec. 15– 16.” slip op. at 14

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

    “This evidence, particularly the language in the ’335 patent itself, undermines Patent Owner’s argument that “[t]he process for forming gate ledges using separate masks instead of the self-aligned process disclosed in the ’335 patent cannot produce ledges that are ‘substantially symmetric.’” PO Resp. 39 (emphasis added); see also PO Resp. 42–43 (arguing that a gate structure with ledges having substantially equal widths is “not achievable” without using a single photo-mask process). We have considered the evidence presented by Patent Owner and Dr. Schubert in support of Patent Owner’s arguments. PO Resp. 38–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 49–51. We, however, are unable to discern sufficient evidence supporting a conclusion that using separate masks cannot produce ledges that are substantially symmetric, particularly when the ’335 patent suggests otherwise. See Ex. 1001, 4:60– 63 (referring only to the “possibility of misalignment”). Even if, as Patent Owner and Dr. Schubert contend, misalignment “naturally” occurs when using a two-mask process, that does not foreclose the possibility that the” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “It is well settled that “[a] reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Furthermore, “teaching that a composition may be optimal or standard does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,312,335 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,312,335
• Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. 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)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,008,483
• Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6

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

    “The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. 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))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurita and Lemoff, with the Board declining to reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We accept the level of ordinary skill in the art stated by Petitioner and agreed with by Patent Owner with the exception of the open-ended language appears consistent with the ’416 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

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

    “describe elements that are not affirmatively recited in the claims, and in view of the “bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention,” we conclude that none of the unrecited limitations identified by Patent Owner are required by the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the standard for disavowal is “exacting,” and the use of “the present invention” is not necessarily sufficient to meet this standard).” slip op. at 12

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

    “art would not have modified Kurita in view of Lemoff because Lemoff positions the signal emitters near the fiber to emulate WDM without the need for an external optical multiplexer or a similar device and discourages using optical wavelength multiplexers for short distances because the complexity of the design is often cost prohibitive (PO Resp. 47–48), Lemoff does not appear to limit the usefulness of the fiber connector to any particular optical signal transmission distance. Petitioner relies upon Lemoff for a suggestion to combine Lemoff’s fiber connector configuration teachings with Kurita’s multiplexer teachings to enable fibers to be plugged Fig. 2) (Pet 29, 31; Reply 17–18). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Lemoff’s receptacle and ferrule with discrete components in Kurita because the fiber would need to be manually fixed and aligned with or without a ferrule and, therefore, would serve no purpose (PO Resp. 48), Lemoff’s fiber connector appears to fix and align the fiber adequately for wavelength division multiplexing without manual fixation or alignment being required (Ex. 1006, 5:65–6:2, Fig. 2; Reply 18). The challenged claims do not require any greater degree of fixing and alignment than that provided by Lemoff’s fiber connector. Regarding Patent Owner argument that Lemoff’s device is not physically combinable with Kurita’s WDM multiplexer due to Lemoff’s device’s small size (PO Resp. 47–48; Reply 17–18), “[t]he 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)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 26

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

    “stopped single optical fiber because fixing it in place does not passively align it with the optical components (PO Resp. at 35–37) is not persuasive because fixing Kurita’s fiber (40) in place in accord with Lemoff’s teaching regarding the ferrule (255) inserted until being stopped by the receptacle (260) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2) would align Kurita’s optical array (20), and lens (30)) (Ex. 1004 Fig. 3) passively in the same manner that Lemoff’s ferrule (255), after being inserted until stopped by the receptacle (260), passively aligns the optical fiber (250) with the optical components (optical imaging element 220 and light emitters within emission apertures 120) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2; Reply 15–16). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that the light from each of Kurita’s lasers (11) depicted in Figure 3 cannot pass through a separate focusing lens (30) pie shaped sector because the lasers (11) and collimating lenses (21) are arranged linearly rather than being arranged about a circular axis (PO Resp. at 37–42), we do not agree. Claim 1 requires “focusing means having n separate radial sectors on its surface, and each of said n collimated beams passes through a separate one of said n sectors of said focusing means” (Ex. 1001, 5:34–37), claim 2 requires “four lasers and four collimating lenses are each formed in a two-dimensional, two by two array [centered on the focal axis of lens 30], wherein said focusing means is a single focusing lens, and wherein each radial sector is a pie-shaped quadrant” (id. at 5:41–44), and claim 7 requires “focusing means having four separate quadrants on its surface, and each of said four collimated beams passes through a separate one of said quadrants of said focusing means” (id. at 6:35–38). Kurita meets those claim requirements. Kurita’s two by two array (10A) of lasers (11), collimating lens (21) array (20), and focusing lens (30) are shown in Kurita’s Figure 3 (cropped) as follows: The image is a portion of Kurita’s Figure 3 showing Kurita’s laser array, collimating lens array, and focusing lens (30). Relative to a point at the center of the laser array (10A) or the collimating lens array (20), each laser (11) and each collimating lens (21) is in a separate quadrant that can be a quadrant of a circle (pie-shape) on lens 30 (Reply 12– 13, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,198,416 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,198,416
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641

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.