- Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00321 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 16, and 17 not unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required purge-tower teachings or prior-art status.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of research or industry experience in 3D printing or materials used for 3D printing.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–16). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree or formal training (and vice versa).” Id. Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of skill, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” Prelim. Resp. 24. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’324 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“According to the ’713 patent, “[p]urge tower 24 itself may be . . . recycled or otherwise discarded as desired.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28. This description provides some support for Patent Owner’s view, because a purge tower too intimately integrated with the part would be difficult or impossible to recycle or discard. This is further supported by the ’713 patent’s statement that “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Id. at 8:30–34. It also is supported by Dr. Hickner’s testimony that the ’713 patent “clearly shows . . . the 24 purge tower separated from the part” and that “the purge tower is a separate physical object.” Ex. 2016, 28:8–10, 64:1–9. On the other hand, there is evidence supporting Petitioner’s view that, as long as the purge tower is generally separate from the part and the support structure, it may still make contact with those portions of the print. As noted above, “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Ex. 1001, 8:30–34. This language does not exclude locations adjacent to or in contact with the part or the support structure. Thus, determine that a “purge tower,” as that term is used in the context of the ’713 patent, may not be an integrated portion of a printed part or support structure but need not be free of all contact with the printed part or support structure.” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“There is evidence of record to support both Petitioner’s view and Patent Owner’s view. On the record developed at trial, however, we cannot say that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer teaches printing a layer of a purge tower each time the printer switches one extruder to the operating mode. Because proving the obviousness of claims 1 and 16 requires such a showing, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 16 would have been obvious over the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer. 5. Analysis of Remaining Claims Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 or claim 16. Accordingly, they all include the limitations of either claim 1 or claim 16. Because, as discussed above, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 16, Petitioner also has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 would have been obvious over that combination of references.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artOther
“On the record developed at trial, we agree with Petitioner. According to several industry forum posts, people interested in three-dimensional printing located the website where KISSlicer was posted between February 2012 and April 2012. Ex. 1028, 1 (post discussing and directing others to KISSlicer on April 11, 2012); Ex. 1031, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on March 16, 2012, and March 21, 2012); Ex. 1032, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on February 11, 2012, and February 14, 2012). Thus, not only was it possible for people of ordinary skill in the art to locate KISSlicer; people of ordinary skill in the art actually did locate it. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer was publicly accessible.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 9,421,713 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,421,713 - Adobe Inc. v. Jonathan E. JaffeNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01352 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted §103 ground because the references did not teach monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and memory.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The Institution Decision adopted and applied Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because Petitioner’s “definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The parties present various claim construction arguments, disputing the meaning of three limitations recited in claim 1: “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory”; “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor”; and “based on.” See Pet. 9–14; PO Resp. 5–12; Pet. Reply 4–9; PO Sur-reply 4–11. For purposes of this Decision, we do not need to discuss the construction of “based on.” 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)). As explained below, this Decision turns on whether Glass or Rieger discloses limitation [1c] reciting “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–66; see infra §§ II.C.2, II.E.1, II.F. That limitation recites an element which overlaps with the earlier-recited limitation “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory.” To reach our decision, we need only provide a limited discussion of two of the parties’ claim construction arguments. Our analysis follows.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–21:2. Although Petitioner points out that the limitation does not expressly recite “‘specifically’ monitoring the tight coupling” (Pet. Reply 8), the structure of the clause suggests that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. At a high level, the limitation is straightforward in its recitation that the integrity being monitored is “of the tight coupling” (Ex. 1001, 20:65–66 (emphasis added)), plainly suggesting that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. More granularly, breaking the relevant clause down to its grammatical parts, the clause recites a gerund (“monitoring”) acting on a direct object (“the integrity”) which is modified by a prepositional phrase (“of the tight coupling”). Notably, the object of the preposition (“of”) is “the tight coupling.” Altogether, this reads that the integrity being monitored is specifically of the tight coupling. Also, the claim recites that “if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Therefore, from the claim language we know that the “integrity” of the tight coupling is something that may be “compromised,” which is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of determining whether the physical coupling has been “accessed or disturbed.” Petitioner’s interpretation effectively inserts additional language into the limitation such that the limitation includes monitoring the integrity of a device containing or surrounding the tight coupling, such as a camera (or camera housing), e.g., “monitoring the integrity of a camera that includes the tight coupling.” But, because the plain reading and the structure of the limitation reads that it is specifically the tight coupling’s integrity—not another physical structure, like a camera—which is being monitored, a monitored is not consistent with the language of the claim. See PO Resp. 9 (arguing that “Petitioner’s construction is improper because the claim language explicitly requires monitoring the physical coupling between the memory and the sensor as opposed to some third structure” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“package 50 does not specifically monitor the integrity of the coupling between Glass’s sensor and the memory and, instead, argues that Glass detects tampering of all “the components and interconnections contained in that packaging,” e.g., control logic 44, cropper 46, compressor 47, MUX 45, code generator 48, and the various interconnections between those components. See Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1005, 5:13–41. As explained above, we construe “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor” to mean determining whether the physical 7 Petitioner does not assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Glass’s device in any way; Petitioner solely argues that Glass teaches limitation [1c], based on Petitioner’s proposed claim construction. See Pet. 30–32 (“Glass discloses this limitation.”); Pet. Reply 16–17 (“Glass and Rieger disclose the ‘monitoring’ step.”). disturbed, which specifically requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory. See supra § II.C.2. As we agree with Patent Owner that this limitation requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory, monitoring Glass’s tamper resistant package 50 does not teach or disclose “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that Glass teaches or suggests [1c] monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor when said at least one internal and unique parameter is generated, and, if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity, as required by claim 1. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Glass.8” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 6,757,828 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,757,828 - Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the 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, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,203 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00666 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required determination that access occurred during a predetermined period.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. 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 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art. See PO Resp. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,715,878 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00701 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the prior-art combinations did not establish a determination that devices accessed the Internet during a predetermined period.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. 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 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art. See PO Resp. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition. Q So is it your opinion that the – the limitation 1B requires that the system determines whether or not the accesses by the -- the two electronic devices occurred within a predetermined period of time? A Yes.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,715,878 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01281 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations did not establish a determination that devices accessed the Internet during a predetermined period.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at critical time. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The resolution of this question is important because it allows us to “maintain[] objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 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 3 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0113674 A1, published May 15, 2008 (Ex. 1003, “Baig”). 4 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0128547 A1, published July 1, 2004 (Ex. 1006, “Laidlaw”). 5 U.S. Pat. No. 6,427,170 B1, issued July 30, 2002 (Ex. 1007, “Sitaraman”). 6 Harley Hahn, The Internet Complete Reference (2d ed. 1996) (Ex. 1008, “Hahn”). 7 U.S. Pat. No. 7,730,030 B1, issued June 1, 2010 (Ex. 1009, “Xu”). 8 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0282328 A1, published Dec. 14, 2006 (Ex. 1010, “Gerace”). 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b) (2023). Our rule adopts the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts, which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Under this standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. 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 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,715,878 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. G+ Communications, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 31, 2024 · IPR2023-00441 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 and 17–18 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not disclose a “pre-set UE number” under the adopted construction.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded to maintain our preliminary construction. Indeed, as already noted, Petitioner does not argue for the preliminary construction. Neither does Petitioner question the validity of the reasons given for the District Court’s construction. Rather, Petitioner repeats its position that it “takes no position on the District Court’s construction” and Petitioner does not have any reason “as to why that construction is wrong or right.” Tr. 18:24–19:6. We do not see any reason to construe “pre-set UE number” contrary to what the District Court has determined. Indeed, we find the District Court’s analysis of the issue highly persuasive and adopt it as our own. And Petitioner has not provided any argument regarding construction of the term, simply taking no position on its correctness.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner has forfeited the indefiniteness argument. Regardless, we are given no reason to find construction of the two means-plus function terms impossible given the District Court determination. We agree that the scope of the terms is based on a means-plus function analysis. We are not persuaded that structure is not sufficiently described.” slip op. at 14
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that this argument was not presented in the Petition and is too late and/or incorrect. Sur-reply 5. We agree with Patent Owner. Neither Patent Owner nor the Board were given any notice of this argument in the Petition. Regardless, we find no merit in Petitioner’s argument. Fundamentally, our jurisdiction regarding patentability is limited to Sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). We do not find that claim 18 is so indefinite that a patentability determination is impossible. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 802, 812–813 (Fed. Circ. 2021) (claim construction obligation “does not mean that the Board must reach a determination of the patentability of a claim on the presented prior-art grounds if such a determination is rendered impossible because of the indefiniteness of an essential claim limitation.”). Indeed, the District Court determined that the corresponding structure is a processor programmed to either (1) descramble a Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) of Downlink Control Information (DCI) for scheduling the RAR according to a pre-set RA-RNTI or an RA-RNTI corresponding to the preamble, and receive the RAR, the RAR including at least one TCRNTI and/or at least one Uplink (UL) grant. Ex. 2008, 23 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:4). (2) determine corresponding RA-RNTIs according to respective IDs and/or preambles, descramble a CRC of DCI for scheduling the RAR according to the corresponding RA-RNTIs, and receive corresponding RARs, the RAR including a TCRNTI and/or a UL grant allocated to the first UE or second UE.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Our construction of “pre-set UE number” is dispositive of this proceeding. See Section III.B.1 above. Petitioner agrees that both Li and Kim “don’t disclose that the message 3 includes a ‘pre-set number of UEs’” under our final construction of “pre-set UE number.” Pet. Reply 4; see also Tr. 7:20–22 (“Under [the District Court] construction, Li and Kim would not disclose Claim 1, at least Claim 1, of the ’430 patent”); 11:3–17 (Petitioner’s counsel arguing claim 18 is indefinite but agreeing neither claim 1 nor 18 have been shown unpatentable under the District Court construction of “preset UE number”). For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has not shown a by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 18 are anticipated by Li.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 10,448,430 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,448,430 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 4, 2024 · IPR2022-01496 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because the cited combinations failed to teach required claim limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“including mobile device applications.” Pet. 8 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Petitioner also contends that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner adds that a POSA could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, but otherwise agrees with Petitioner’s definition of a POSA. PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 74–78). We apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, but, add that the person of ordinary skill in the art could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science because that is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’187 patent and the prior art. Our Decision, however, would not be affected if we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill in the art. D. Claims 1–21: Obviousness in View of Poole and Hammad” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We credit Dr. Long’s uncontroverted testimony on the topic of “authentication,” which he supports with citations to objective evidence. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 26–31 (citing Ex. 2020, 594, 595, 626, 627, 632, 633, 636). He describes the three types of user authentication as being based upon what a user “knows,” “has,” or “is.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 28 (citing Ex. 2020, 627). He testifies that authentication based on what a user “knows” involves entering a user name and password or answering security questions. Id. ¶ 29 (citing Ex. 2020, 632–633). He further explains that the second type of authentication based on a user providing something that they “have,” involves the user providing, for example, “a key to a door” or an “ATM card.” Id. ¶ 30 (citing Ex. 2020, 633). Regarding the last way of authentication, Dr. Long testifies that the third method, providing something that the user “is,” such as a user’s biometric characteristic like a fingerprint or image of a face. Id. ¶ 31 (citing Ex. 2020, 636).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, none of the cited material within Poole (¶¶ 32, 48, 88, 94) supports Petitioner’s contention. Poole’s ¶ 32 describes sensors 214 having a “sensor identifier” that “may be used by . . . customer device 220 . . . to identify and/or locate sensor 214,” but wholly fails to describe scanning a machine-readable element to decode location information. Ex. 1006 ¶ 32. Poole’s ¶ 48 explains: information contained in signals transmitted by sensors 214 may include a Bluetooth identifier, Bluetooth profile, sensor identifier, and/or sensor position. The sensor identifier of each sensor 214 may be stored in association with a known position of sensor 214 in memory 306, storage medium 308, and/or database 314. Customer device 220 may retrieve a position or sensor identifier of sensor 214 located near customer device 220 based on the stored information. Id. ¶ 48. This paragraph similarly fails to describe that customer device 220 scans a barcode to decode location information, but instead describes device 220 receiving a wireless signal from sensor 214 used to obtain the position of the sensor from a database. Id. Barcodes are not discussed at all in Poole’s ¶ 48. Id.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,368,187 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,368,187 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2022-01509 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable over Poole and Hammad because the combination did not teach the claimed machine-readable element, and Poole did not teach the claimed scanning and decoding.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“priority date would have had a ‘bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with one to two years of experience in research, design, development, and/or testing of location-based systems including mobile device applications,’” also noting that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner adds that a person of ordinary skill in the art “could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, but otherwise agrees with Petitioner’s definition.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–58). We apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, but, add that the person of ordinary skill in the art could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science because that is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’188 patent and the prior art. Our Decision, however, would not be affected if we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes a specific construction for any claim term. Pet. 8–9; PO Resp. 17. Based on our review of the record, we determine it is not necessary to construe expressly any claim term for the 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)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the disclosure of Poole and Hammad, we find that Petitioner’s argument that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood that the QR code generated and displayed by Hammad would perform the same function as the barcode taught by Poole” (Pet. 16) is not supported by the evidence of record. Poole does not teach that a user can initiate a purchase transaction by scanning Poole’s barcode. Poole discloses that a bar code on sensor 214 can be scanned to identify the sensor and that a 5 Petitioner states: “[t]o the extent that Poole does not expressly disclose a ‘machine readable element generator . . .’, Hammad does.” Pet. 13. To the extent that this statement can be construed as an argument that Poole alone satisfies limitation 1[d], Petitioner does not direct us to any disclosure that Poole teaches “a machine-readable element generator.” See Pet. 11–13. Petitioner relies on Poole’s disclosure in paragraph 94 of “scanning a bar code.” Id. at 12. Poole’s paragraph 94 does not address how the barcode is generated. Ex. 1006 ¶ 94. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Poole alone teaches “a machine-readable element generator” as recited in limitation 1[d]. bar code on a merchandise item is scanned to identify the merchandise item as part of the store inventory management process. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 94, 97. Petitioner, thus, does not persuade us that Hammad’s use of a QR code to initiate a purchase transaction is functionally equivalent to the use of Poole’s barcode.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Mr. Williams provides testimony that cites to the same evidence as the Petition and similarly concludes that Hammad’s QR code performs the same function as the barcode taught by Poole. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103–105. Because we find that Poole and Hammad themselves fail to support this conclusion, his testimony is unsupported and thus entitled to little, if any, weight. Additionally, he testifies that Poole’s mobile application scans the bar code. Id. ¶ 118. His testimony that Poole’s mobile application scans the barcode, like the Petition, relies on paragraphs 32 and 94 of Poole. Although Poole describes its customer device 220 wirelessly receiving “a coordinate position” of sensor 214, Poole does not describe its customer device 220 receiving location information by scanning a barcode. Ex. 1006 ¶ 32. When Poole does describe using a barcode to convey sensor identifiers including location information for the sensor, it does so in the context of its description of inventory management, but not in connection with the customer’s use of customer device 220. Id. ¶¶ 94, 95. Consequently, Mr. Williams’s testimony on this point is entitled to little, if any, weight because it is not supported by paragraphs 32 and 94 of Poole.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 10,368,188 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,368,188 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. G+ Communications, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · IPR2022-01598 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 2, 6, 8–11, 15, 17, and 18 not shown unpatentable over Kannan because Kannan did not disclose the construed transmission blocks.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded that “single entity” requires a separate construction or additional clarification, presumably by “testimonial evidence.” See Pet. Supp. Br. 4 n.1. Here, we need not determine the precise outer bounds of the term “transmission block,” including all the different types of single entities, because the Board is required to construe the claim to only the extent necessary to resolve the dispute. See 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)). The relevant context for understanding what is a single entity is the disclosures of Kannan and the ’443 patent regarding “code block,” “transport block,” and “transmission block.” Those are the “single entities” and are the focus of the dispute. For the preceding reasons we adopt our preliminary construction of “transmission blocks” as our final construction. No additional terms are in dispute that require construction.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“invention of the ’443 patent “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of wireless communication technology.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–24). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill and “takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art” because “it does not affect the ultimate analysis.” PO Resp. 11–12. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because we are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’443 patent. The proposed level of skill is consistent with the field of the invention as indicated by the cited prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Kannan is based on the OSI model and describes control and data transmission on the MAC and PHY layers. Ex. 1006 ¶ 63. Kannan explains that “[w]ireless devices may exchange data using Medium Access Control (MAC) layer units known as transport blocks that may include a number of CBs.” Id. ¶ 8. Further, at the PHY layer, “a transport block may be divided into CBs.” Id. ¶ 52. Kannan continues to describe that “code blocks” “may be bundled into multiple bundles having a certain number of CBs.” Id. These parts of Kannan support the Akl Rebuttal Declaration conclusion’s regarding the OSI model in Kannan. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 31–37, 49–50. Thus, we credit the Akl Rebuttal Declaration on this issue (id.) over Dr. Ding’s testimony (Ex. 1016 ¶ 13) because it is better supported by Kannan. Based on the preceding, we find that “code blocks” on the PHY layer are found only with “transport blocks” and are not a “separate entity.” See PO Supp. Br. 2.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Kannan is based on the OSI model and describes control and data transmission on the MAC and PHY layers. Ex. 1006 ¶ 63. Kannan explains that “[w]ireless devices may exchange data using Medium Access Control (MAC) layer units known as transport blocks that may include a number of CBs.” Id. ¶ 8. Further, at the PHY layer, “a transport block may be divided into CBs.” Id. ¶ 52. Kannan continues to describe that “code blocks” “may be bundled into multiple bundles having a certain number of CBs.” Id. These parts of Kannan support the Akl Rebuttal Declaration conclusion’s regarding the OSI model in Kannan. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 31–37, 49–50. Thus, we credit the Akl Rebuttal Declaration on this issue (id.) over Dr. Ding’s testimony (Ex. 1016 ¶ 13) because it is better supported by Kannan. Based on the preceding, we find that “code blocks” on the PHY layer are found only with “transport blocks” and are not a “separate entity.” See PO Supp. Br. 2. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that claims 1, 8, 10, and 17 are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 10,594,443 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,594,443
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.