- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Eyesmatch Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00810 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4. Thus, on the whole, Petitioner’s shifting, scattered arguments do not persuasively address limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Haan and Francois. And Petitioner’s arguments and evidence addressing claims 2–6, 10–12, 16, and 17 do not cure the foregoing deficiencies in the challenge of claim 1. Pet. 46–52. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of claims 1–6, 10–12, 16, and 17 would have been obvious over Haan and Francois.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have combined these references “to correct image distortions and provide a more realistic mirror image.” Pet. 52–55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 242–249. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that by specifically disclosing “flipping” the image, Rosenberg is discouraging or teaching away from performing other transformations to achieve its objective of “replicat[ing] the performance of a standard household mirror.” See PO Resp. 35, 38–39 (Patent Owner asserting lack of motivation to combine the references). A reference may be said to “teach away” “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Galderma Lab'ys, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2009)). “A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.” Id. Further, when conducting an obviousness analysis, the Board must consider a prior art reference “not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We are not convinced that the references before us “teach away” from performing the other transformations. In sum, we find for the reasons given that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that to a person of ordinary skill, Rosenberg alone or with Park teaches or suggests limitation 1[f].” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“shows by a preponderance of the evidence that limitations 1[c] and 1[e] are taught or suggested by Rosenberg and Park, in combination. Pet. 58–64; PO Resp. 39–40; Reply 19–20; Sur-reply 19. Petitioner persuades us that limitations 1[c] and 1[e], would have been obvious over Rosenberg and Park, in combination. Pet. 58–64; Reply 19–20. Patent Owner’s counter arguments are unavailing for multiple reasons. Patent Owner’s arguments fail because they improperly attack Rosenberg’s teachings individually, rather than addressing Petitioner’s combination of the references. PO Resp. 39–40; Sur-reply 19. This is fatal to Patent Owner’s arguments. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, Petitioner presents persuasive arguments and evidence that the references, in combination, teach limitations 1[c] and 1[e], including persuasive evidence that the references’ tilting, resizing, and zooming meet the claim limitations’ “adaptive transformation mapping . . . to generate modified images that appear to be captured from a different point of view” that “corresponds to an image taken from a different angle and a different distance.” Pet. 58–64 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67, 253–268; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26–28, 50, 52, 61, 75 ; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 50–51, 59, Figs. 6A–6B, 7, 8, 14, 15; Ex. 1019, 16–20; Ex. 1021, 2:19–27, 17:19–24, 21:60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11); Reply 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 253–268; Ex. 1021, 17:17–23; Ex. 2012, 63:13–22, 111:13–21). Regarding tilting, after noting the ’110 patent’s disclosure (incorporated from the ’109 patent) of performing tilt transformations (Pet. 10–11), Petitioner advances persuasive evidence that Park discloses such a tilting transformation, thereby teaching the claimed “different angle” (id. at 61–63). Regarding resizing and zooming, citing extensive discussion in the ’110 patent (incorporated from the ’109 patent) of resizing and/or zooming to address the effects of varying distance between an object and a camera, Petitioner and Dr. Karam explain that the prior art’s zooming and resizing meet the claimed “different distance.” Pet. 63 (Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1021, 17:19–23, 21:57–60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11); Ex. 1003 ¶ 265 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1021, 17:19–23, 21:57–60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11). In its counterarguments, Patent Owner suggests that zooming and resizing do not account for “occlusion effects,” but Patent Owner does not persuasively tie this argument to the ’110 patent, failing to cite any portion of the ’110 patent that evinces its invention addresses such effects. PO Resp. 23–25, 39–40.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,110 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00287 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9–12, 14–16, and 22–24 are unpatentable under § 103 over Riepling and Meisels, or Riepling, Manzano, and Meisels; claim 13 was disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. We apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction of “representation of the at least one file.” Petitioner is correct that a representation of a file is not the file itself, but (in keeping with the ordinary meaning of “representation”) is rather some sign or symbol that stands for the folder. Reply 2. This is confirmed by the explicit example of a representation of a folder in the ʼ906 application, illustrated in the portion of Figure 6B reproduced below (highlighted here for purposes of explanation). This portion of Figure 6B depicts representations of two files: “FamilyHistory.docx” and “XmasLetter-2012.pdf.” The ’906 application specifically states: [A] located data resources dialog UI element 630b . . . includes a presentation space 632b for presenting a user detectable representation of some or all of the data objects identified in the received data object identification response from . . . second node 504. Ex. 2004 ¶ 147 (emphasis added). The entries in the above figure are representations of the files, not the files themselves. The actual files are stored in the file system storage associated with the user’s node, and only retrieved if the user selects the “Access” or “Access All” elements. Id. ¶ 148. Patent Owner misconstrues the claim 22 language, “a first representation of the at least one file, in a location among one or more folders, that is stored at the at least one server” and “a second representation of the at least one file, in a location among one or more folders, that is stored at the first node.” Patent Owner infers from this language that the representation is itself a file that is “in a location among one or more folders” and is stored on a server or at a node. PO Resp. 17. Not so — the representation of a file, such as “FamilyHistory.docx” in the above figure, is not stored at a server or node, but rather is simply displayed on a screen. As the ’906 application states: A representation of a program entity may be stored and/or otherwise maintained in a presentation space. As used in this document, the term “presentation space” refers to a storage region allocated and/or otherwise provided for storing presentation information . . . . A screen of a display, for example, is a presentation space.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“because (i) Riepling and Meisels are from the same field of endeavor, directed to sharing files over a network; (ii) the combination would have yielded expected, predictable results, using known and routine computer programming principles, to modify Riepling’s system to generate an electronic message that includes a link pointing to an uploaded file; (iii) the combination would have been readily implemented given Meisels’ teachings of inserting, in an electronic message, a link to a shared location where a file is uploaded; and (iv) the combination was suggested because Meisels expressly disclosed a benefit of sending an email message with a link, to avoid multiple copies of a file from existing at multiple locations, and sending links to one file to multiple recipients and managing permissions on an individual recipient basis. Pet. 67–70 (citing Ex. 1107, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 2, 4, 19; Ex. 1108, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 1, 3, 41–45, 56; Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 194–198). In addition, for reasons similar to the motivation basis, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Id. at 70–71 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 199–200). Other than its arguments directed to ’520 claim requirement 9[l], discussed below in Section III.D.4.d), Patent Owner does not further address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the combination of Riepling and Meisels. As discussed in that section, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have applied the document link teachings of Meisels to modify Riepling. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Riepling and Meisels in the manner argued by Petitioner.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that set content field 325 of Riepling teaches or suggests claim requirement 9[b]. As Petitioner’s expert explains, the fact that field 325 has an appearance identical to that of fields 321–324 in Figure 3, which fields are specifically stated to be “text field[s],” strongly suggests that field 325 is also a text field. Mowry Decl. ¶ 70; see also Reply 10–11. Patent Owner’s suggestion that field 325 could be a dropdown list or other type of field is contradicted by the fact that it does not show the typical dropdown arrow associated with a dropdown box, or other typical non-textbox appearance such as the checkbox appearance of field 320. Moreover, in the example of Figure 3, the “Set Content” entry is “audio,” which is a file description. Reply 10. The fact that “JPEG” is checked in field 320 is not inconsistent with the “audio” entry in field 325, given that, as Riepling explains, “it may be possible for audio files such as MP3 files to contain non-MP3 data, such as JPEG data embedded within the MP3 files.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1107 ¶ 32; Mowry 2nd Decl. ¶ ¶ 101–104). Also, there is no reason why the Figure 5 response that gives the uploader the ability to provide additional description of the file being uploaded is inconsistent with the ability of the requester first describing what type of file is being requested via field 325 in Figure 3. Id. at 11–12. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that the record supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim requirement 9[b].” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 11,611,520 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00286 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 17–21 are unpatentable under § 103 over Houston and Garcia; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We conclude that there is no basis for Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “representation of the at least one folder.” Petitioner is correct that a representation of a folder is not the folder itself, but (in keeping with the ordinary meaning of “representation”) is rather some sign or symbol that stands for the folder. Reply 2. This is confirmed by the explicit example of a representation of a folder in the ’635 application, illustrated in the portion of Figure 6D reproduced below (highlighted here for purposes of explanation). This portion of Figure 6D depicts representations of several folders, including the highlighted “Music” folder. The ’635 application specifically states: A folder content pane UI element 648d in navigation window UI element 646d is presented including representations of one or more data objects[11] at a location, identified in a path UI element 650d. A pointer UI element 652d illustrates a drag and drop operation of a “Music” folder represented in contents pane UI element 648d, dropped on edit window UI element 602d. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123 (emphasis added). The word “Music” in the above figure is a representation of a folder, not the folder itself. The actual folder is an entity in a file system that stores files (in the case of a “Music” folder, presumably MP3 or WAV files, or the like).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not pertinent to Petitioner’s proffered combination of Houston with Garcia as applied to the remaining challenged claims 17–21. As discussed further below, Petitioner relies on Garcia as supplementing Houston for details regarding the requirements of generating and sending an email with a link to a folder but without a file attachment, and for synchronizing folders and providing interfaces for display of shared folders. Pet. 26–27, 36–39, 57–60. For the challenged claims, Petitioner does not need to rely on the combination to modify Houston’s system such that, when an icon for a shared folder is created in Houston’s interface at an invited user’s client, the client does not store a file in the shared folder — 14 For this argument and others, Patent Owner cites for additional support portions of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/233,787. PO Resp. 18, 42, 46; Sur-Reply 9–12. This application is designated in Houston as a related application, and incorporated by reference therein. Ex. 1003, code (60), 1:6–10. We denied as untimely Patent Owner’s request to belatedly add this application to the record. Ex. 3002; Paper 39. Even accepting Patent Owner’s representations of the relied-on disclosures in that application, those disclosures are cumulative to Houston’s criticisms of systems that store documents remotely, and are irrelevant for the same reasons as discussed herein with respect to those Houston disclosures. that aspect of the Houston/Garcia combination is only relevant to claims 1–8, which have been disclaimed. Id. at 40–41; Ex. 2045.15 Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that Houston teaches away from combining with Garcia to delay storing a file when a folder is shared is not applicable to Petitioner’s challenges of claim 17–21, in light of our conclusion set forth above in Section III.C rejecting Patent Owner’s proposed construction of claim 17. The fact that the Houston system ensures the availability of synchronized local copies of files at each user’s local system and criticizes systems that store documents remotely, such as in Garcia, is irrelevant to those claims. On this record, there is nothing about that particular difference in the approaches of Houston and Garcia that would support a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from adopting Houston to take advantage of the teachings in Garcia regarding use of email and folder interfaces. In sum, Patent Owner focuses on a specific irrelevant detail of Houston regarding local storage of files, whereas Petitioner relies on other features of the combination of Houston and Garcia. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“To give substantial weight to objective indicia of nonobviousness such as commercial success, a proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Nexus is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[T]here is no nexus unless the evidence presented is ‘reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220 (quoting Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). A patentee is entitled to a presumption of nexus “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “[T]he patentee retains the burden of proving the degree to which evidence of secondary considerations tied to a product is attributable to a particular claimed invention.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378. The Federal Circuit has held that “if the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them, then a nexus is presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A finding that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; rather, “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Fox Factory, 994 F.3d at 1373–74 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 125, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “Ultimately, the fact finder must weigh the [objective indicia] evidence presented in the context of whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.” See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33, 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential) (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331–32 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“However, as Petitioner argues above, Houston discloses that a client can provide an email to the server to invite others to share a folder, and Houston explains that “attaching files [to emails is] cumbersome for many computer users.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 4, 1:41–42, 3:40–43, 7:50–51). From this, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious for the email invitation to notify how to access the folder, rather than sending the folder contents itself. Id. Petitioner further argues that the claim 17[d] requirement would have been obvious over the combination of Houston and Garcia given the disclosure in Garcia of sharing a folder by sending an email with a link to the folder, instead of an attachment. Id. at 27, 57 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 9, 11–12, 10:32–34, 10:38–40, 11:39–43, cl. 3). We are persuaded that the record supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding this claim requirement. Both Houston alone, and the combination of Houston and Garcia, teach or suggest sending an email with a link to a folder to be shared, rather than the folder contents. Only if the recipient clicks on the link are the contents of the folder shared. Ex. 1004, 11:29–31. The act of clicking on the link in the email after the email is received is the required “initiation of the communication” that must occur separately from the email itself, as required by claim 17[d]: “causing generation of at least one email [that] does not include a file attachment, for permitting avoidance of at least one file from being communicated to and stored at the second node until an initiation of the communication of the at least one file by a user of the second node is detected and the communication commences via at least one server that stores the at least one file” (emphasis added). It does not matter if Houston or Garcia automatically downloads local copies of files when a recipient clicks on the email link, because that is a separate step following the step of claim 17[d].” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 11,611,520 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520 - Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00214 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Foster; the Board did not reach the instituted Orsini anticipation or obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention of the ’609 patent, “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with three years of experience in the area of securing data from unauthorized access or use,” and that “[a] higher level of education may substitute for less experience.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–38).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Initially, we note that Petitioner’s challenge is based on the parties’ proposed district court constructions for “data set.” See Pet. 65–66. But neither party proposes a construction for “data chunks” in this proceeding. Notably, the 83-column Specification of the ’609 patent itself does not use the term “data chunks.” Even so, the meaning of “data chunks” is readily apparent from the plain language: the data chunks are generated “based on a data set,” and the claim defines the steps that comprise the chunk generation, including the relationship between the chunks and the data set. See Ex. 1001, 83:15–30; In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (In all aspects of claim construction, “the name of the game is the claim.” (quoting Giles Sutherland Rich, Extent of Protection and Interpretation of Claims–American Perspectives, 21 Int’l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990))).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues, and we agree, that “it does not need to show that there was a known problem with the prior art system in order to articulate the required rational underpinning for the proposed [modification].” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1002–03 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cited in Pet. Reply 14–15). Petitioner persuasively explains: [C]ontent-owner storage would not negate benefits of content-service providers (“CSPs”) storing Foster-encrypted content. [The skilled artisan] knew CSPs (e.g., cable-TV companies) often purchased/licensed content from content owners and then securely stored it before delivering to recipients. [Ex. 1099], 84-94. CSPs typically and beneficially encrypted and stored that content for repeated use (e.g., downloads by different customers) – rather than repeatedly encrypting it on-the-fly – and for backup purposes. Petition, 77-78 (citing EX1045, EX1050, EX1059-EX1060; [Ex. 1003], ¶¶206-213); [Ex. 1111], ¶¶102-114 (citing EX1073, [0043] (VOD “pre-encrypt[s]” and “stores the content”); EX1097, 2:31-53 (“real-time encryption [for VOD] poses much greater cost and space issues”); EX1075, 1:51-67; EX1105, [0034]-[0037]; EX1080, 2-7). Pet. Reply 15; see id. at 16–17 (“EX1060, e.g., describes prior-art VOD systems where CSP intermediary ‘servers . . . store all movies.’” (citing Ex. 1060 ¶¶ 7–8 (cited in Pet. 77)) (alteration in original)). As for Patent Owner’s allegation that Petitioner’s proposed modification to Foster would “compromise” Foster’s security, Petitioner argues, and we agree, that, “[b]eyond a conclusory expert declaration, [Patent Owner] offers no evidence that hacking risks or overall storage requirements would increase by storing content at a CSP/intermediary rather than a content owner.” Pet. Reply 17. Petitioner also argues, and we agree, “even if it required ‘increased cost and complexity’ to make CSP storage more secure, that does ‘not show that [the technique] was unknown or could not have practical applications,’ and thus does not support non-obviousness.” Id. at 17–18 (quoting In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 700–701 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); id. at 18 (“[I]t is a commonplace fact that design decisions entail making tradeoffs among multiple objectives.” (quoting Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 2021 WL 4944471, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 25, 2021)); see Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine [or to modify].”). Although Patent Owner disputes whether a rational reason exists to modify Foster to arrive at the subject limitation (discussed above), Patent Owner otherwise does not dispute reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See generally PO Resp. 32–56.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 11,068,609 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,068,609 - Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00215 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Foster and Hayhurst; the Board did not reach the anticipation and obviousness grounds based on Orsini.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with three years of experience in the area of securing data from unauthorized access or use.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–38). Petitioner also asserts that a “higher level of education may substitute for less experience.” Id. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. Patent Owner submitted the Declaration of Dr. Rubin in support of its Response, and in that Declaration, Dr. Rubin accepted Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 20–21. For the reasons given, we apply the same level of ordinary skill in the art that we did in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 4.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“See Section II.C.3.a.ii supra. Although Dr. Rubin calls Hayhurst’s security benefits “ancillary” (Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 108–109, quoted in PO Resp. 40), this does not align with Hayhurst (see Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 2, 7, 8, 21). For example, Hayhurst describes the security measures in the Technical Field section (id. ¶ 2) and the Summary of the Invention section (id. ¶¶ 7, 8). Hayhurst also discusses piracy deterrence in both the Summary of the Invention section (id. ¶ 8) and the invention’s detailed description (id. ¶ 21). Because Dr. Rubin does not give sufficient weight to Hayhurst’s discussion of piracy deterrence and security, we do not credit Dr. Rubin’s testimony on this issue. See Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 108–109. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Hayhurst is reasonably pertinent to the network-security problem that the inventors were trying to solve. See Reply 5–6.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Neither party explicitly proposed constructions during trial, and we do not see the need for construing any terms in this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“3. Claim 1 a. Analogous Art “To be considered within the prior art for purposes of the obviousness analysis, a reference must be analogous.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Wang Lab. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 864 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland Gmbh v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,452,854 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,452,854 - Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,312,335 - Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01381 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 7–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Uemoto and Smith; the motion to amend is granted, and proposed substitute claims 13 and 14 are not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In order to determine whether an invention would have been obvious at the time the application was filed, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, chemical engineering, physics, or material science, or a closely related field, and at least two years of experience in semiconductor device design or fabrication, including the processing of semiconductor materials, analysis of device operation, or the development of new device topologies.” Pet. 5–6. Petitioner contends “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Id. at 6. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, physics, material science, or a closely related field, and three years of professional work experience in the epitaxial growth, design, and fabrication of semiconductor electronic devices, including those of GaN.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 82). Upon review of the evidence of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). We note, however, that the conclusions reached in this Decision would be the same under either proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See Ex. 2009 ¶ 83 (Dr. Schubert testifying that his opinions would be the same under either proposed definition); Ex. 1033 ¶ 9 (Dr. Shealy testifying that the differences in proposed definitions of the ordinarily skilled artisan “would not change the outcome of the invalidity analysis in any material manner”); PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 1.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“compensated GaN layer above the barrier layer, and a gate contact above the compensated GaN layer.” Ex. 1001, 5:12–18. Petitioner contends the term “compensated” indicates that the step of compensating the GaN layer has already occurred, such that the term “compensated GaN layer” should be construed as a “‘[d]oped GaN layer formed with a step to passivate its impurities’ which is a ‘product-by-process’ limitation.”5 Pet. 12–14. And, because compensation with hydrogen was the “critical step” distinguishing the claims from the prior art, and because hydrogenation in as-grown III-nitride materials had been well known for over a decade by 2009, Petitioner contends “compensated” “cannot be interpreted as mere hydrogen presence in as-grown material, a well-known property of doped GaN.” Id. at 15. Patent Owner contends “compensated GaN material” should be construed as “a semiconductor GaN gate material in which one type of impurity (for example, donor) cancels the electrical effects of the other type of impurity (for example, acceptor).” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 92) (emphasis added). Patent Owner contends this construction is consistent with the IEEE dictionary, which defines “compensated semiconductor” as 5 Given that product-by-process steps in a device claim are not entitled to patentable weight, Petitioner contends “the prior art only need show a material with passivated impurities to show unpatentability, not the step to achieve it.” Pet. 15–16. “[a] semiconductor in which one type of impurity or imperfection (for example, donor) partially cancels the electric effects of the other type of impurity or imperfection (for example, acceptor).” PO Resp. 14 (quoting Ex. 2004). Patent Owner contends its construction is also consistent with the written description of the ’294 patent, which explains that a compensated GaN material is part of the gate and includes a p-type impurity that imparts an electrical effect (i.e., conductivity), as well as a second impurity, e.g., hydrogen, that partially cancels the electrical effect of the p-type impurity, rendering the layer semi-insulating. Id. at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–13, 3:43–45). On this record, we construe “compensated GaN layer” as “a GaN layer in which one type of impurity (for example, donor) partially cancels the electric effects of the other type of impurity (for example, acceptor).” This is consistent with the disclosures of the ’294 patent, the IEEE dictionary definition, and the construction ultimately adopted by the ITC. Ex. 2004, 3; Ex. 1049, 16–17 (ITC construing “compensated GaN layer” to mean “a GaN layer in which one type of impurity partially cancels the electrical effects of another type of impurity”); Ex. 1001, 3:43–45 (explaining that the compensated GaN layer of the ’294 patent is formed through the “passivation of a p-type impurity using hydrogen”). For the reasons set forth below, however, we decline to construe “compensated GaN layer” as a product-by-process claim term (as asserted by Petitioner), or to limit the compensated GaN layer to a gate material (as asserted by Patent Owner).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term: (1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. The standards for lexicography and disclaimer, however, are “exacting.” Id. at 1366. There is no argument that the patentees acted as their own lexicographer to redefine the term “compensated GaN layer.” With respect to disavowal, a “patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). As noted by Patent Owner, the title of the ’294 patent is, in part, “Compensated Gate MISFET” and much of the discussion of the ’294 patent is of a compensated GaN layer that is directly below the gate contact and above a barrier layer and operates in conjunction with the gate contact to control the on/off state of the transistor. PO Resp. 12–14. We are presented with insufficient argument or evidence to conclude, however, that these disclosures rise to the level of a disclaimer. For example, although the title of the ’294 patent is directed to a “Compensated Gate MISFET,” claim 1 is more broadly directed to “[a] column III Nitride transistor.” Ex. 1001, 5:12, code (54). Nor are we directed to an expression or statement of manifest exclusion in the ’294 patent that would serve to disclaim any “compensated GaN layer” that is not directly below the gate and/or that does not function in concert with the gate electrode to control the on/off state of the transistor. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366. With respect to the stated goals of the invention, as noted by Patent Owner, one of the primary purposes of the compensated GaN layer of the ’294 patent is to reduce gate leakage and gate capacitance. Ex. 1001, 2:13– 19, 3:18–21 (“[U]sing a compensated semiconductor layer 38 leads to low gate leakage during device operation.”). We cannot use the goals of the invention, however, to rewrite the claims or insert terms that are not present. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366. Moreover, the prior art of record indicates that a compensated GaN layer that is below the gate contact and above a barrier layer, but not part of the active gate structure, may also “decrease the leakage current between the gate and the drain.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44 (“Even when a positive bias of 5 V or higher is applied to the gate electrode, no significant gate-leakage current is observed.”), 61. As such, evidence of record suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that one of the primary goals disclosed in the ’294 patent is achieved regardless of whether the compensated GaN layer is part of the gate, or simply in close vicinity to the gate. In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that the written description of the ’294 patent indicates that the “compensated GaN layer” must be part of the gate structure.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“To be probative, Patent Owner must prove there is a nexus between the presented evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. See Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A rebuttable presumption of nexus applies when the “patentee shows that the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product and that the product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1392). “That is, presuming nexus is appropriate ‘when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Id. (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). If the praise is not limited to the features of the claimed invention, the patent owner may still prove nexus “by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. at 1373–74 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Patent Owner contends that the compensated gate of the ’294 patent “was a breakthrough invention and resulted in the first commercially viable enhancement-mode GaN transistor.” PO Resp. 60 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 192– 193, 197; Ex. 2021). Patent Owner further contends that this achievement required the counter-intuitive use of a compensated gate material in the gate structure, and represented “a technological leap that laid the foundation for viable enhancement-mode GaN transistors.” Id. at 61–62. For this achievement, Patent Owner contends the inventor, Dr. Alex Lidow, received the 2015 SEMI Award. Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 2021). Upon review of Patent Owner’s evidence and the parties’ arguments, we find that Patent Owner’s objective indicia evidence is entitled to little, if any, weight. The evidence of praise relied upon by Patent Owner is not clearly linked to the claimed invention or any particular product having each of the claimed features of the ’294 patent. Ex. 2021. For example, the 2015 SEMI award was provided to Dr. Lidow “for commercialization of GaN power devices.” Id. An article explaining the award indicates that “high cost” previously “limited [the] commercial success” of GaN technologies, but Dr. Lidow was able to overcome these issues, “from resolving packaging limitations to establishing a low-cost supply chain,” “through persistence.” Id. This praise is not demonstrably linked to the claimed invention or any particular device, and does not mention the use of a compensated gate, or any other relevant feature recited in the claims. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Patent Owner’s objective evidence of non-obviousness is entitled to little, if any, weight.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 8,350,294 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,350,294 - BMW Of North America, LLC / Robert Bosch LLC et al. v. Foras Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01373 · APJ Carl W Whitehead Jr · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 and 13–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Bigbee and Nguyen because the combination teaches determining whether lockstep is recoverable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 8–9. In its Response, Patent Owner does not take exception to our definition. See PO Resp. 3. However, Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of work experience with computer architecture design.” Id. We find Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art are not meaningfully distinguishable from one another. Accordingly, we do not see the need to modify our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. However, our findings would not change even under Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We are satisfied that Mr. Jones qualifies as a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 2008, 1 (“Summary” including “embedded systems including both software and hardware”, “Representative Design Work” including, e.g., “Design and implement multiple device drivers for complex Integrated circuits,” “Design of a highly fault tolerant, distributed data acquisition and control, system for a rebreather . . . system architecture, hardware design and layout, embedded firmware, documentation,” “hardware and firmware design,” “[h]ardware and firmware for controlling a unique, battery powered diesel burner…”), 2–3 (list of Publications). We are also satisfied that Mr. Jones’ degree in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering is sufficiently “equivalent” to a degree in Computer Engineering or Computer Science. See PO Sur-reply 11. We decline to give Mr. Jones’ declaration no weight for several additional reasons. One, Petitioner has not moved or otherwise sought to exclude Mr. Jones’ declaration, nor has Petitioner filed an objection. See Pet. Reply 2–5; see also Hearing Tr. 32, 33:15–34:8. Two, we are afforded broad discretion in assigning weight that is to be accorded expert testimony. See Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he Board was well within its discretion to give more credibility to [one expert over another] unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so.”); see also CTPG5 34–36. In sum, Petitioner has not persuaded us that Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony should be given no weight because Mr. Jones is not qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art according to our definition. See Pet. Reply 2–5; see also PO Sur-reply 10–13. 5 Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (CTPG) (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner did not challenge Petitioner’s position on these terms. See Prelim. Resp. 1–13. We determined there were no claim terms that needed to be construed in our Institution Decision. See Institution Dec. 9– 10. Post-institution, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction of these terms and “does not believe either term requires construction, because . . . Petitioner fails to demonstrate obviousness regardless of how these terms [(“lockstep is recoverable” and “loss of lockstep is recoverable”)] are construed. PO Resp. 2. We agree with Patent Owner that no claim construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision. That is, we do not discern any claim terms that are in controversy on the full record. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find Mr. Jones’ testimony amounts to conjecture because it is unsupported by evidence, for the reasons explained by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 10–11; Ex. 2007 ¶ 32; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight”). However, we find that Dr. Brogioli provides sufficient persuasive evidence as to how firmware FRC logic would be used and modified in the Bigbee/Nguyen combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 57–58, 96–98. As discussed above, Bigbee uses firmware FRC logic to check for an error within a processor core. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 35–37, Fig. 4A. Bigbee’s firmware FRC logic does not determine if lockstep is recoverable. Id. Similar to Bigbee, Nguyen also uses firmware FRC logic to check for an error within a processor core. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 9, 18, Fig. 7. However, the difference is that Nguyen’s firmware FRC logic determines if lockstep is recoverable. Id. We find for the reasons given by Petitioner and Dr. Brogioli including those summarized supra, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bigbee by implementing Nguyen’s determination in firmware. Pet. 33–35 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 94 (stating that “[i]mplementing logical steps in firmware was known in the art”); ¶ 95 (stating that Bigbee’s system “is compliant with well-known industry standards”); ¶ 98 (stating that “firmware is flexible” and “can be modified after production, updated, and supported relatively quickly and inexpensively.”)). In contrast, Patent Owner’s arguments fail to convince us that a person of ordinary skill in the art, having knowledge of Nguyen’s teaching of determining lockstep recovery, would not have able to modify Bigbee’s firmware FRC logic to determine if lockstep is recoverable. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also id. at 418. Accordingly, Petitioner has presented reasoning, with rational underpinnings, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to modify Bigbee’s firmware FRC logic based upon Nguyen’s teachings and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Accordingly, we find for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that this element is taught or suggested by the Bigbee/Nguyen combination.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 7,502,958 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,502,958 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,198,416
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.