• Everstar Merchandise Co., Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2025 · PGR2019-00056 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Remand

  Claims 2–7, 9–19, 21–25, 27, 30, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious; Petitioner did not prove claims 8, 20, 26, 28, 29, and 32 unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandMixed

    “The Federal Circuit found that “[t]he factual record and Willis’s concession on appeal conclusively establish that the cost of copper was a known problem in the art, Debladis ’120 (and Kumada) helped address that issue, and Willis has not disputed that combining the teachings of Kumada and Debladis ’120 was within the skill of an ordinary artisan,” concluding “[n]othing more is required to establish a motivation to combine.” Everstar II, 2025 WL 1501940, 4. The Federal Circuit observed that “Willis has conceded that the combination of Kumada and Debladis ’120 disclose all the limitations in claim 1,” and accordingly, “reverse[d] the Board’s patentability determination as to that claim and vacate[d] the Board’s judgment as to the remaining claims of the ’037 patent,” remanding to us for further proceedings. Id. at 4–5. With those instructions in mind, we review the Petitioner’s allegations regarding claims 2–33.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “F. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the First Final Written Decision, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have (1) at least two years of experience in the design of decorative lighting, or (2) at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, and a basic familiarity with circuits used in decorative lighting.” Paper 40, 12. We see no reason to depart from that earlier determination.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The parties agree that we do not need to construe any claim terms. Pet. 8–9; PO Resp. 16–17. We likewise agree. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing 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 13

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

    “Patent Owner did not dispute that the combined teachings of Kumada and Debladis ’120 disclose each limitation of claim 1. Patent Owner, however, did dispute Petitioner’s proposed reasons for combining Kumada and Debladis ’120, and argues that Debladis ’120 is not analogous art. PO Resp. 36–61. The Federal Circuit stated that substantial evidence only supports the conclusion that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kumada and Debladis ’120. The factual record and Willis’s concession on appeal conclusively establish that the cost of copper was a known problem in the art, Debladis ’120 (and Kumada) helped address that issue, and Willis has not disputed that combining the teachings of Kumada and Debladis ’120 was within the skill of an ordinary artisan. Nothing more is required to establish a motivation to combine. Given that Willis has conceded that the combination of Kumada and Debladis ’120 disclose all the limitations in claim 1, we reverse the Board’s patentability determination as to that claim and vacate the Board’s judgment as to the remaining claims of the ’037 patent. Everstar II, 2025 WL 1501940, 4 (internal citations omitted). The Federal Circuit further noted Patent Owner’s secondary considerations arguments as to claim 1 and stated [t]he cited evidence consists only of a temporal connection between the introduction of Willis’s invention and the UL 588 standards, and deposition testimony of a single witness who seemingly disclaimed any connection between the two. This is not sufficient to rescue a claim as to secondary considerations. Id. at 4, n. 5 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit ruled that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kumada and Debladis ’120. 6. Analysis of Independent Claim 33” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,222,037 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,222,037
• Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00067 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–23 because the cited art did not teach or suggest creating the claimed fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent is unpatentable. We therefore do not institute trial on any challenged claims or grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,106,697
• Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01272 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Google did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017 (en banc (quoting Magnum Oil)). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). A party who petitions the Board for a determination of obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “In determining 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) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art described in the Petition and applied in the Preliminary Response, which is consistent with the description in the ’626 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “While [Dr. Fox] asserts that Oldham’s external engine is the required “networked data source,” he does not identify any teaching in Oldham that there are any “field identifiers” in Oldham’s external engine. Dr. Fox then goes on to argue that “POSAs would have recognized that the SO-properties mapped to the keywords are determined ‘field identifiers of the networked data source stored in the universal variable data database’ based on the dynamic data because the SO-properties for each class are defined by the form engine and mapped to corresponding fields from various forms stored in the form database.” EX1003, ¶ 102. First, Halevy’s SO-properties obviously cannot be “field identifiers” of Oldham’s external engine, because Halevy’s SO-properties do not come from Oldham’s external engine. Rather, they are generated in Halevy’s system as part of the “database schema” of Halevy’s form database. See EX1006, [0038] (“In one embodiment of the present invention, the database describes web sources in terms of an ontology of classes and properties, which is referred to as the ‘search ontology’ (SO).”). In addition, Halevy’s SO-properties are not “field identifiers” at all. Rather, the SO-properties are simply search filters that assist Halevy’s search engine in determining a form’s degree of relevancy to the user’s keyword search query. See EX1006, [0137] (“[T]he system performs a lookup based on the structured query in the form database to identify forms of interest (step 608) and ranks these forms (step 610).”). Also I note that Dr. Fox argues elsewhere in his declaration that SO-properties are “normalized variables,” which even he recognizes are different from “field identifiers.” See, e.g., EX1003, ¶ 101 (“Halevy’s form engine determines field identifiers . . . by mapping keywords in the query to SO-properties (i.e., normalized variables) . . . .”). As described in the ’734 patent, “normalized variables” are used to create associations between field identifiers of different forms, but they are not themselves “field identifiers.” See EX1001, 15:65-16:3 (“In this way, once a site’s category is defined, the variable mapping exercise can be simplified to match which variables or identifiers match up with which normalized variable . . . .”). Thus, Dr. Fox fails to show any teaching or suggestion in the combination of Oldham and Halevy of the claim limitation “determining . . . field identifiers of the networked data source stored in the universal variable data database.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 59, 61–64 (underlining added). We adopt Dr. Malek’s testimony and reasoning above as our own.” slip op. at 25

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

    “b. Halevy’s schema-mapping search engine Although Halevy’s schema-mapping system uses a common set of SO-properties for the form fields in each SO-class, there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in Halevy to use schema-mapping for “mapping,” linking, or integrating the field identifiers (parameter names) of different forms on different websites to one another to generate deep-links. We find the Petition’s reasoning and the cited testimony of Dr. Fox on this crucial point to be conclusory. We also find the Preliminary Response to be persuasive, Dr. Malek’s testimony (Ex. 2001) to be credible, and the reasoning of both consistent with the disclosures in Halevy.” slip op. at 30

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,152,734
• Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01270 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–26 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented and the evidence of record, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–26 of the ’378 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby do not institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’378 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA or POSITA) at the time of the invention of the ’378 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with web programming and search engine systems[; m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–36) (“Patent Owner and its expert apply this definition.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our 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 11

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

    “(3) Discussion We observe first that “[Halevy’s] first step in processing a web source is to locate the forms in the source and to extract the text corresponding to the fields in the form.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53. According to Halevy, the “web source is subsequently classified into the ontology classes.” Id. ¶ 55. Then, the “forms on the page are classified into the classes in the ontology.” Id. ¶ 57 (emphasis added). Halevy explains that this classification is used to predict what kinds of objects are in the databases queried by the form. Id. For “Schema Matching,” Halevy discloses “a mapping between the fields in the form and the SO-properties of the SO-classes[.]” Id. ¶¶ 61–62. Missing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that a “plurality of computer-readable field identifiers” are mapped “to one another” as required by claim 1. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Fox, testifies that “[t]he ‘SO-classes’ are identified for each form and used to map the fields in the form (i.e., “the plurality of computer-readable field identifiers”) to one another using “SOproperties,” as shown . . . in annotated Figure 3.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 39–40, 45, 49, 62, 67). Yet, those cited portions of Halevy do not support Dr. Fox’s testimony. As Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Sam Malek, explains: the language highlighted by Petitioner in Figure 3 does not actually show that “[t]he ‘SO-classes’ are . . . used to map the fields in the form . . . to one another using ‘SO-properties,’” as he contends. Id. Rather, the language in Figure 3 that Dr. Fox has highlighted merely shows that, for any given form, there is “mapping between fields” of that form and “class properties.” EX1006, Fig. 3. In other words, fields in a form are mapped to class properties. Figure 3 does not show any mapping of fields to each other, as Dr. Fox argues.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,633,378
• Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · PGR2024-00047 · APJ Steven M Amundson · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any of claims 1–7 was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “to institute a post-grant review. We may not institute a post-grant review unless we determine that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2024).” slip op. at 2

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as encompassing a” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 26

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 36

  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,830,546
• Apple Inc. v. S.M.R Innovations Ltd And Y.M.R Tech LtdInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01048 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all four grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “We begin our analysis with independent claim 1. Considering these factors, we preliminarily determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Zhang, Fillebrown, and Pasanen, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner argues that limitation 1c is taught by the combination of Zhang with Fillebrown. Pet. 18. Petitioner identifies Zhang’s teaching of transmitting commands and media content from the mobile device to helper servers via a wireless network, WLAN. Pet. 16–18 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:25– 60, 4:1–8, 4:32–50, 7:1–14, 8:13–22; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103, 104, 114–118). Acknowledging that Zhang does not expressly teach an intermediate routing device, Petitioner identifies Fillebrown’s intermediate wireless router (wireless router 120) for providing network range extension by amplifying routed signals. Id. at 19–22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 16, 34, 49, 51, 57, 61). Petitioner contends a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Zhang to route data via an intermediate wireless router pursuant to Fillebrown to provide network range extension, and that such a modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang and Fillebrown teach the same network setup (i.e., WLAN using a wireless protocol/standard such as IEEE 802.11 or Home RF). Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109–111)” slip op. at 20

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

    “The parties do not propose any express claim construction. Pet. 4; see generally Prelim Resp. We also determine that no express claim construction is necessary for our Decision, apart from that discussed in our below analysis. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms in controversy must 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)).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We preliminarily disagree with Patent Owner. Although the claim lists step 1b before step 1d, method steps are not ordinarily construed to require a specific order of performance unless the claims or Specification directly or implicitly require that specific order. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Nothing in the express claim language precludes performing step 1d before step 1b, as in Zhang. For example, the claim does not contain temporal terms, like “then” or “next,” nor does the claim otherwise specify that step 1b must precede step 1d. Although Patent Owner points out that a term of step 1d (i.e., the one more available devices) derives antecedent basis from text in step 1b (i.e., one more available devices), this alone does not directly or implicitly require performing step 1b before step 1d. Prelim Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1002, 240, ’648 patent prosecution history). Nor does the Specification require performing the step of identifying devices as available before the step of wirelessly signaling those devices or even that the steps be mutually exclusive. For example, there are no statements that this step order is important, nor disclaimer of any other order, nor any prosecution history indicating a surrender of any other order. Moreover, according to the Specification, announcer 30, which is the component that identifies devices as available prior to the wirelessly signaling, is only “preferably provided.” Ex. 1001, 7:28–31. Even assuming Patent Owner were correct that step 1b must precede step 1d, Patent Owner’s position that device(s) must be identified as available does not appear to be commensurate with the claims. According to its plain meaning, limitation 1b does not appear to require identifying devices as available; the claim merely requires identifying “available devices.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (rejecting arguments “not based on limitations appearing in the claims”). In other words, the claim does not appear to require identifying (i.e., determining) whether devices are available but merely requires identifying devices that happen to be available. According to our preliminary understanding, Zhang’s mobile device 1) discovers (identifies) connected available and unavailable helper servers, and then 2) sends (wirelessly signals) service requests to compatible available and unavailable helper servers. Ex. 1004, 3:44–4:8, 6:51–7:13. Thus, Zhang identifies and then wirelessly signals available devices (Zhang also identifies and then wirelessly signals unavailable devices). As such, we preliminary determine that Zhang meets the claim language “identifying one or more available devices” and “wirelessly signaling the one or more available devices.”” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,547,648
• Apple Inc. v. S.M.R Innovations Ltd And Y.M.R Tech LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01047 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, deny Petitioner’s request to institute inter partes review of the challenged claims on the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is similar to Petitioner’s definition with some variation in the amount of education and specificity as to the experience required. As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. We note, however, that our determination in this proceeding would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner “applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” and does not propose construction of any claim term. Pet. 4. Patent Owner also does not propose construction of any claim term. See generally, Prelim. Resp. Based on the record before us, we see no need for express construction of any term for the purposes of this Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “feature of scanning a wireless communication network by the mobile device receiving the streaming data for re-routing, to identify devices connected to the wireless network, are identified as capable to handle the routed media content.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1002, 237–238). Thus, we understand the recited language to require scanning to find devices that have been identified as compatible, not just scanning to find devices and later determining which of those devices, if any, are compatible. Zhang, on the other hand, scans to find devices in the network, but that scan does not seek out devices identified as compatible. Specifically, Zhang scans to find its “helper environment” which is composed of “devices around them.” Ex. 1004, code (57); see also id. 2:16–20. The first step of Zhang’s process is to find “a local device [that] offers helper service.” Id. at 3:62–63. In the next step, Zhang then interrogates the device it scanned for in order to find out whether that device offers the necessary service. Id. at 3:63–4:5. In other words, Zhang is not scanning for compatible devices, but rather it is scanning for any device around it and then asking whether the device provides the necessary service. We find this to be insufficient because the claim is not merely seeking to identify a compatible device, but rather it is scanning “to identify a plurality of devices, identified as compatible to handle said media content.” Thus, for these claims it is not enough that the network be scanned for devices; instead, the network must be scanned for devices “identified as compatible.” The inclusion of Rofheart does not address this issue. Rofheart is relied upon to teach “that a local device identifies and connects with a plurality of remote devices.” Pet. 29. According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Rofheart’s teaching to improve Zhang by adding “the benefit of providing users control to select one or more of a plurality of devices, rather than always connecting to the first identified available compatible device, as taught by Zhang.” Id. As such, neither of the cited references addresses the recited scanning for devices identified as compatible.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,699,223
• Apple Inc. v. S.M.R. Innovations Ltd And Y.M.R. Tech LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01049 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 22–24 would have been obvious over Chihara, BluetoothSpec, Everett, and Chang.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Thus, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that Chihara, in view of BluetoothSpec and the other references, teaches the “announcer device” limitation. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that it would be likely to prevail if we instituted an inter partes review. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown that there is a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’866 patent is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny the Petition. ORDER It is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “Although Petitioner doesn’t promote it in its Petition, we agree with Petitioner’s undisputed contention that the ordinary and customary meaning of the “announcer device” limitation is that the “streaming device is receiving rerouted data from surrounding media handling devices, rather than rerouting data to surrounding media handling devices.” Pet. 19–20. This is in accord with the specification of the ’866 patent which states that “[t]he announcer device 30 is responsible for announcing to the environment the availability of a current device for accepting routed media.” Ex. 1038, 7:22– 24 (emphasis added). The construction that Petitioner does promote, based on its interpretation of Patent Owner’s arguments in the parallel litigation, departs from the term’s ordinary meaning, yet Petitioner has presented no 7 Petitioner also argues that we should construe the term media transformer as a means-plus-function limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pet. 7–11. We need not construe this term to reach our decision not to institute trial in this proceeding. 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))). evidence to justify such a departure. For example, Petitioner has not shown that the patent applicant has plainly acted as lexicographer for the term, or has plainly disavowed the full scope of the term. See Thorner v. Sony, 669 F.3d at 1365; Multiform Desiccants v. Medzam, 133 F.3d at 1477. We are aware of no evidentiary basis for Petitioner’s proposed construction in the specification or prosecution history of the ’866 patent. To the extent, if any, that Patent Owner may have argued in the parallel district court proceeding for a departure from the term’s ordinary meaning, we find no clear disavowal of the term’s scope, particularly in light of Patent Owner’s ultimate argument that the term should have its “[p]lain meaning.” Ex. 2008, 2.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “In light of our disagreement with Petitioner’s proposed claim- construction, we do not find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that Chihara teaches the “announcer limitation,” either alone or in light of BluetoothSpec. Although Petitioner shows that Chihara’s phone 11B announces its availability for pairing with nearby Bluetooth-compatible devices, Petitioner does not argue that phone 11B indicates availability to receive any rerouted data from either headset 13 or watch 12B. To the extent that phone 11B receives streaming or media data for rerouting, it appears to receive it from a mobile or fixed communication network, not from any surrounding Bluetooth devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 79 (phone 11B receives video and audio data via “a fixed telephone network or another mobile telephone set accommodated in a mobile communication network,” and transmits that streaming data to watch 12B and headset 13), 53–54 (calls arrive via mobile telephone antenna 26, which are then processed and transmitted via Bluetooth antenna 21 to watch 12). Regarding the bidirectional communication between phone 11B and headset 13 or watch 12B, Petitioner has not pointed to any evidence that the data sent from watch 12B or headset 13 to phone 11B includes rerouted streaming data. Similarly, Petitioner’s contention that Chihara’s phone 11B, in light of BluetoothSpec, indicates its availability (e.g., that the phone is “powered on” and transmits signals to discover nearby devices) fails to meet the plain language of claim 22, which requires the streaming device (phone 11B) to indicate its availability to receive streaming data rerouted from the surrounding devices (headset 13 or watch 12B). Thus, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that Chihara, in view of BluetoothSpec and the other references, teaches the “announcer device” limitation. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that it would be likely to prevail if we instituted an inter partes review.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,711,866
• ROKU, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2024-01025 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 100–109 and 111 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation by Russ and obviousness over Russ with Robert or Eskicioglu.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim in the ’236 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 100–109 and 111 on all grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).1” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “1 Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences. Paper 3. Petitioner states that it filed three parallel IPR petitions challenging three different claim sets of the ’236 patent “solely for word count purposes that preclude all claims from being challenged in [a] single petition,” “there is no duplicative overlap of the same claims across petitions,” and there is a “need to set” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “someone having “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately two or more years of experience in multi-media content distribution and management. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed definition for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Malek Dec. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38).7” slip op. at 7

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

    “on claim construction and disregard everything else.8 The parties direct our attention in particular to the proper construction of an “independent” second root of trust in context of the recited claim limitation: “a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses a second root of trust which is independent of and different than the first root of trust.” We refer to this disputed claim limitation hereafter as the “independent authentication” limitation.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,291,236
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2022-01421 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 8–24, and 26–30 as obvious over Roese, Golnabi, Huima, and Hayter; claims 6, 7, and 25 with Esbensen added.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, supported by Dr. Jacobson’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, four years of industry experience, and a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and points to an equivalent level adopted in the ’148 FWD. See PO Resp. 6. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelMixed

    “Issue preclusion [(i.e., collateral estoppel)] is appropriate only if: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” slip op. at 9

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

    “caching occur “while the rule sets are being swapped.” Id. at 14–15. Patent Owner recites the surrounding steps or processes to the “caching the one or more packets” limitation, and asserts that the limitation requires “the packets are cached while the rule sets are being swapped.” Id. Although Patent Owner has provided the context of the claim limitation, we are not persuaded that such a stricture needs to be imported into the claim limitation itself. The “caching the one or more packets” limitation itself does not require that such caching can only occur while the rule sets are being swapped. The plain meaning of caching packets alone does not require such a restriction. The independent claims employ “comprising” language and could allow, for example, for the caching of packets, after the signal to process packets in accordance with the second rule set has been received, even if the swapping of rule sets has not yet occurred. Patent Owner’s construction attempts to incorporate other aspects of the claims into a single limitation that is not so limited under its plain and ordinary meaning. We are not persuaded that specifying when the caching occurs, i.e., while the rule sets are being swapped, is integral to the plain and ordinary meaning of “caching the one or more packets.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “to its temporal aspect of when caching of packets occurs, i.e., its claim construction that such caching occurs during a swapping of rule sets. As discussed above in Section II.B, we are not persuaded that the limitation “caching the one or more packets” requires that the caching must occur only while the rule sets are swapped. We are persuaded, however, that Roese, Huima and Hayter teach, as proposed by Petitioner, the caching of at least some portion of a packet while rule sets are being swapped. the rapid response identifier signal is received, the response system initiates the process of configuring the forwarding engine with the one or more policies and/or PERs, and Huima teaches that in response to receiving a signal to change the rule set, packet processing pauses. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 47, 52; Ex. 1006 ¶ 31. We agree with Petitioner’s assertion that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a network device should pause the processing of any pending packets and any incoming packets that arrive after the instruction to change the rule set but before the change is completed, in view of Roese and Huima. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 171). Further, we continue to be persuaded that Hayter teaches using a packet processor with an integrated cache to store at least portions of packets in the L2 cache, and we are persuaded that such storage would occur while awaiting processing to begin again. Pet. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:40–48, 3:53–59, 6:3–26, 24:34– 36; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178–179). We are persuaded that this teaches or suggests that any caching of packets, or portions thereof, would occur in the period between when a signal is received to change rule sets and when processing of packets reoccurs under the new rule set. As such, we consider Patent Owner’s arguments in the context of whether the combination of Roese, Golnabi, Huima, and Hayter would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that entire packets should be cached in the combined system.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,681,009 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,681,009

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.