- Fubotv Media Inc. / Yanka Industries, Inc. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00917 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 3–18 as obvious over Leaning, and claim 2 as obvious over Leaning and Ala-Honkola.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. “continuous playback” This term appears in independent claims 1 and 13. For example, limitation 1D of claim 1 recites “adapting the successive determinations to shift the playback quality based on the factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the streamlets of the highest quality copy of the video that is determined to be sustainable at that time.” Claim 13 recites a similar limitation. Petitioner contends “[t]he claims’ plain language only requires that the shift in playback quality is made ‘to achieve continuous playback.’” Pet. Reply 1 (citing claim 1). According to Petitioner, “shifting quality ‘to achieve continuous playback’ is aspirational, not limiting, language.” Id. (citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., 246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Petitioner asserts that “[n]othing in the claims requires uninterrupted playback before, during, or after the shift in quality.” Id.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredMixed
“continuous playback.” We also do not rely on Exhibit 1045. Accordingly, we consider Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike in this regard to be moot. For these reasons, we do not strike Petitioner’s reply arguments or supporting evidence regarding claim construction. B. Leaning’s Clear Buffer Step Patent Owner alleges Petitioner has shifted its position on reply slip op. at 89
Patent outcomesUS 10,757,156 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,757,156 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00432 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 8, 9, 11–13, 18, and 19 as anticipated or obvious over Zhang; the remaining claims as obvious over the listed combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“and digital selector 240 disclosed by Zhang is “digital circuitry,” which is configured to receive a plurality of frequencies comprising a plurality of desired/undesired television channels from ADC 220 and to output the desired television channels to demodulators 250 as a digital datastream. Tr. 71:14–17 (PO Counsel: “There is no dispute that in both Zhang and the patent, an RF signal that has both desired and undesired channel comes in and what’s sent to demodulators are desired channels. Nobody is disputing that.”), 134:3–5 (PO Counsel: “The issue is not whether the black box 230- plus-240 is the digital circuitry. It is. The issue is not whether or not that overall circuitry selects channels. At some level, it does.”). In other words, Zhang teaches digital circuitry that is (1) capable of receiving a plurality of frequencies including desired/undesired television channels and (2) capable of distinguishing between the desired/undesired channels to output the desired television channels to a demodulator. We find these uncontested facts to be highly probative of Petitioner’s contention that, to a skilled artisan, Zhang suggests that its digital circuitry is capable of selecting the desired television channels from a digitized plurality of frequencies that include both desired/undesired television channels. This is because Zhang’s digital circuitry is able to take what is input originally as a digitized plurality of frequencies having both desired/undesired television channels and, using those frequencies, pick out the desired television channels that are subsequently output to a demodulator. Zhang teaches that “because only the selected channels are later demodulated” the disclosed digital circuitry is “much faster than traditional analog channel switching through RF tuners” and it “dissipates less heat because fewer resources are required when demodulating only the selected RF channels.” Ex. 1013 ¶ 28 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“ordinary and customary meaning to a POSITA.” Pet. 21. Although Petitioner proposes corresponding structure for the term “digital circuitry” recited in claim 1, it does so only “[t]o the extent” that term “is construed to be a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6.” Id. at 22. But Petitioner does not argue or suggest that “digital circuitry” should be construed as a means-plus-function term; nor does Petitioner make an argument to overcome the presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, does not apply. See id. Patent Owner does not address claim construction. See generally PO Resp. Because neither party actually argues “digital circuitry” is a means-plus-function term, the presumption holds and we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 9,210,362 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,210,362 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00438 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–76 are unpatentable: Zhang anticipates or renders some claims obvious, and the other challenged claims are obvious over combinations including Zhang.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons given, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–76 of the ’206 patent are unpatentable as follows.6” slip op. at 48
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “[a]ll claim terms herein should be given their ordinary and customary meaning to a POSITA.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not respond. See PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“B. Asserted Challenges Based on Zhang Alone Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 11, 13, 15–19, 21, 23, 25, 27– 31, 33–35, 38, 40–44, and 46–48 of the ’206 patent are anticipated by Zhang. Pet. 19–45. Petitioner also asserts that these claims would have been obvious over Zhang. Id. Patent Owner disputes certain aspects of Petitioner’s analysis. PO Resp. 3–50. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 11, 13, 15–19, 21, 23, 25, 27–31, 33–35, 38, 40–44, and 46–48 are anticipated by Zhang or would have been obvious over Zhang.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“system may include a digital video recorder (DVR).” Id. at 45–46 (citing Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 5, 43, 48, 60, 73, 98, 112, 118, 191, 197, 212, 281–285, 296, 546). According to Petitioner, “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to include Reisman’s DVR in Zhang’s STB to provide a more feature-filled and individualized user experience, which in the proposed combination still includes Zhang’s wideband front-end receiver components cited for performing Elements [25A]–[25E].” Id. at 46. Petitioner explains that “Reisman’s DVR improves user experience and flexibility by allowing timeshifted and on-demand viewing, and enabling replay and trick-play (fast forwarding, rewinding, and pausing) of live programming.” Id. (citing Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 191, 197, 212, 284); see also id. at 46–47 (asserting that “[a]dding Reisman’s DVR to Zhang’s system would have been nothing more [than] applying a known technique of integrating a DVR into a set-top box . . . to a known STB . . . that was ready for improvement to yield a predictable result” and that “[a] POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success”). Patent Owner does not specifically dispute Petitioner’s contentions in this regard. See PO Resp. Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence (see Pet. 45–47), we find Petitioner’s proposed combination of Zhang and Reisman teaches all the limitations of claims 25 and 38. We also find that Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for combining Zhang and Reisman supports a legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 11,399,206 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,399,206 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00435 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–82 are unpatentable: claims are anticipated by Zhang or obvious over Zhang, Zhang with Reisman, Zhang with Jackson, or the listed combinations with Pandey.
RulingsFinal written decision- 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).” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). That standard involves construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner asserts that “[a]ll claim terms herein should be given their ordinary and customary meaning to a POSITA.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not respond. See PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner. Claim 1 recites “the DFE is configured to concurrently select and provide each of the plurality of desired channels . . . without providing any of the plurality of undesired channels.” The claim expressly covers both selecting desired channels and providing desired channels. By reciting “without providing any of the plurality of undesired channels,” the claim expressly excludes providing undesired channels; it does not exclude selecting undesired channels. Thus, the claim covers selecting both desired and undesired channels.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner argues that Zhang’s PVR is not a ‘DVR’ as recited in Elements [27D] and [41D], Reisman discloses this feature.” Pet. 50. Petitioner asserts that “Reisman teaches that STBs in a cable system may include a digital video recorder (DVR).” Id. (citing Exc. 1052 ¶¶ 5, 43, 48, 60, 73, 98, 112, 118, 191, 197, 212, 281–285, 296, 546). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated [to] include Reisman’s DVR in Zhang’s STB to provide a more feature-filled and individualized user experience, which in the proposed combination still includes Zhang’s wideband front-end receiver components cited for Elements [27A]–[27C] and [41A]–[41C].” Id. Petitioner explains that “Reisman’s DVR improves user experience by allowing time-shifted and ondemand view, and enabling, e.g., fast-forwarding, rewinding, and pausing of live programming.” Id. (citing Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 191, 197, 212, 284–285, 546, 758); see also id. at 50–51 (asserting that the proposed combination “merely applies a known technique of integrating a DVR into a STB . . . to a known STB . . . that was ready for improvement to yield a predictable result” and that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a reasonable expectation of success”). Patent Owner does not specifically dispute Petitioner’s contentions in this regard. See PO Resp. Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence (see Pet. 50–51), we find Petitioner’s proposed combination of Zhang and Reisman teaches all the limitations of claims 27 and 41. We also find that Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for combining Zhang and Reisman supports a legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 11,381,866 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,381,866 - Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 1, 2025 · IPR2021-00563 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claim 9 unpatentable as obvious over Agin and Chen, finding Agin teaches the initial power adjustment and the combination teaches the offset determination.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Reviewing Patent Owner’s arguments and Petitioner’s assertions, we remain persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the previous power level, i.e., the power level prior to the interruption, and also an offset according to the process illustrated in Agin’s Figure 2. Agin makes clear that its processes in Figure 2 are run “[i]f transmission is not resumed after a transmission interruption” and “[i]f transmission is resumed after a transmission interruption.” Ex. 1004 5:44–50. Figure 2 of Agin is used to make a determination of what the power level would be after an interruption, and that process should be followed, for the first transmission, as well as subsequent transmissions. Agin does not address a separate procedure for the initial transmission after an interruption because the process in Agin’s Figure 2 is generally applicable to all interruptions. This understanding comports with Dr. Ding’s testimony, discussed above, that we credit. See Ex. 2002, 115:13–16, 113:16–22, 110:13–16.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments and continue to be persuaded that there was sufficient motivation to combine Agin and Chen. See FWD 25–26. Petitioner cites multiple rationales for the combination of Agin and Chen, including the benefits of Chen’s techniques, the predictability of such a combination, improvements in performance and transmission quality, reducing uncertainty, smoothing power levels, and argues that these approaches would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 17–19. Although Agin and Chen are directed to different problems, with different solutions, we discern no negative teaching that would proscribe their combination, and we can envision, via the arguments made in the Petition, combining aspects of each to improve the resulting system.” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Ding’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, with 2-3 years of experience in wireless communication systems.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 25). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s identification of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 17. As such, we continue to adopt and apply Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision. See DI 5; FWD 6.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments, as we did in the Final Written Decision. See FWD 25–26. We acknowledge the different aims and solutions detailed in Agin and Chen, but we are not persuaded that they are sufficiently different that aspects of Chen could not be utilized in Agin. We also acknowledge that Dr. Jackson’s testimony is clear and he testifies that Chen is sufficiently different and that the processes of Chen would not be readily adaptable to Agin. Weighing the testimonies of Drs. Ding and Jackson, we determine Dr. Ding’s testimony to be more persuasive as to the combination. For example, we concur with Dr. Ding that handover is directly related to communication interruptions in that the handover mechanism exists in order to try to avoid interruptions. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–68, 102, 105–108; Ex. 1111 ¶ 47. Dr. Ding’s testimony is applied to support the conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination. Patent Owner asserts that such a characterization is misleading (PO Sur-reply 20), but we are persuaded that Dr. Ding’s testimony demonstrates overlapping aspects of the disclosures of Agin and Chen and support the Petition’s rationales for their combination.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,195,216 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,195,216 - K/S Himpp v. Bragi GmbHAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2025 · IPR2023-01150 · APJ Larry J Hume · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable; proposed substitute claims 22–42 are unpatentable, and the revised motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Burden
“also determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 22–42 are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 56
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“also determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 22–42 are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 56
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“d. Conclusion for Ground 4: Obviousness of Claim 1 in view of Shaffer and Hain As discussed above, Petitioner’s analysis addresses how the combined” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 9,843,853 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,843,853 - General Motors LLC v. Edward H. NortrupAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00994 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–31 are unpatentable, principally as obvious over Knockeart and Feldman, with dependent claims also held obvious over additional combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“the proposed alternative configuration. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Also, protecting the privacy of individuals provides further reason for combining Knockeart and Feldman. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–21, 25, 26, 29, and 31 would have been obvious over Knockeart and Feldman, that claims 7 and 8 would have been obvious over Knockeart, Feldman, and Simske, that claims 10, 11, and 30 would have been obvious over Knockeart, Feldman, and Whitsell, that claims 22–24 would have been obvious over Knockeart, Feldman, and Boies, and that claims 27 and 28 would have been obvious over Knockeart, Feldman, and Peterson. See supra Parts III.B–III.F. Because these five asserted challenges are dispositive as to all the challenged claims, namely, claims 1–31, we need not reach either the asserted challenge based on Knockeart, Feldman, Boies, and Peterson, or the asserted challenge based on Knockeart, Feldman, and Craine with respect to any of these claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding that a petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Bos. Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential) (recognizing that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding” and agreeing that the Board has “discretion to decline to decide additional instituted grounds once the petitioner has prevailed on all its challenged claims”). Accordingly, we do not reach Petitioner’s arguments that claim 14 would have been obvious over Knockeart, Feldman, Boies, and” slip op. at 80
Patent outcomesUS 10,444,028 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,444,028 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Peter Henrik PedersenAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00029 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 14–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Funk and Law and over Funk and Kamakura.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the Challenged Claims, identified below, invoke §112 ¶6, Petitioner identifies their function and corresponding structure in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” Id. at 11–21. We are not persuaded that any terms from the ’920 patent should be construed as means plus function terms.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“[a] high volume e-mail ‘newspaper’ delivery system.” Ex. 1006, code (57). Funk’s newspaper is created by “manipulat[ing] publicly available information (AP wire service, Reuters, Business Wire, etc.)” and matching that information to a user profile. Id. at 1:49–50. These various inputs (information sources 100) all feed into service processing system 104. Id. at 5:43–44, Fig. 1. In addition, as we discussed above, Funk also discloses third parties that may send information to the customers. See Reply 9. Law’s “information delivery system includes a web server in operative communication with a plurality of recipients and a plurality of senders.” Ex. 1007, code (57). Thus, Law’s web server and Funk’s service processing system both connect multiple information sources to the email system. Law sets out to “improv[e] the collection and dissemination of recipient preferences for messages . . . by collecting recipient preference data and making it available to a plurality of senders for their use in preparing messages intended for a selected recipient.” Id. at 2:26–30. According to Petitioner, “[i]n the Funk-Law combination, Funk’s system would maintain profiles for senders in the Funk combination database, and provide a way for senders to update their profile information, in the same way that Funk already allows customers to have user profiles.” Reply 9–10 (citing Pet. 64, Ex. 1003 ¶ 130, Ex. 1006, 11:29–33). Dr. Houh opines on behalf of Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “enhance Funk such that the Funk combined processors . . . (1) include[] a software application used to receive sender information including sender identification information from senders via the Internet to establish and update sender profiles, and (2) store[] such sender information in the Funk combination database.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 129. According to Dr. Houh, this would have required the application of a known technique, Funk’s sending messages from parties to customers, by incorporating Law’s sender profiles to help keep track of, organize, and identify senders in Funk. Id. ¶ 130. “Funk contemplates a ‘high volume e-mail ‘newspaper’ delivery system’ that parties can use to send emails to customers, but does not provide explicit disclosure on how various parties sending messages would maintain profiles with Funk’s system.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 130. Dr. Houh further opines that “in the combination of Funk and Law, Funk’s system would maintain profiles for sending parties in the Funk combination database, and provide a way for senders to update their profile information, in the same way that Funk already allows customers to have user profiles that the users may update in Funk’s system.” Id. As such, we are persuaded that this modification would have been obvious in light of Law’s teachings. Patent Owner contends that “[t]here is no need in Funk for multiple sender profiles since it uses a single sender, and there is no motivation in Funk or Law to combine Law’s multiple sender profiles application with Funk’s system that only uses a single sender.” PO Resp. 36. We must, however, be mindful of the Supreme Court’s statement that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Petitioner’s asserted modification would allow the existing information sources in Funk to target the impact of their information in a manner similar to the screening provided to users of Funk’s system. Petitioner provides a sufficient rationale to support its assertions that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add this functionality to Funk’s system. We are persuaded that Petitioner is correct in asserting that the asserted modification would only require the application of a known method to achieve a predictable result. Pet. 63–65. slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 6,965,920 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,965,920 - Arthrex, Inc. v. P Tech, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2022-01043 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18–20 are anticipated by Fumex, and the remaining claims are held unpatentable on obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“After considering the above factors and Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, for purposes of our Institution Decision, we defined a person of ordinary skill in the art as someone having a medical degree and at least two years of experience performing surgeries with implantable medical devices, such as suture anchors. Inst. Dec. 10. Patent Owner and its expert Dr. Pedowitz agree with our analysis in the Institution Decision, and employ our definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 16; Ex. 2001 (Pedowitz Decl.) ¶ 21. After institution, Petitioner did not dispute our definition. See generally Reply. Accordingly, and for the reasons discussed in our Institution Decision, we maintain our definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as someone having a medical degree and at least two years of experience performing surgeries with implantable medical devices, such as suture anchors. See Inst. Dec. 8–10.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the absence of any meaningful claim construction analysis of this term from the parties, and because we find that for purposes of resolving the disputes at issue in this Decision, a construction of “passage” is unnecessary, we decline to construe this term. 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 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In sum, the Specification and prosecution history use the terms “knotless” and “knot” in ways consistent with their known meanings in the art. “[T]o deviate from the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term to one of skill in the art, the patentee must, with some language, indicate a clear intent to do so in the patent.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d at 1373. The Specification and prosecution history are devoid of any clear intention to deviate from the so-called “legacy” meaning of “knotless,” as admittedly used in the context of “knotless suture anchors.” We see nothing in the intrinsic record that supports Patent Owner’s argument that it “coined” a different meaning for this term in connection with the claimed fasteners. We agree with Petitioner that “it strains logic that [inventor] Dr. Bonutti would include ‘knotless’ within a lengthy list of characteristics that a fastener could take on—and without any further explanation, definition, or stated benefits—if he intended ‘that it wasn’t the way the term might commonly have been used at that time.’” Reply 5–6 (quoting Ex. 1018 (Pedowitz Depo. Tr.), 20:15–22); see also Ex. 1018 (Pedowitz Depo. Tr.), 24:6–26:1, 27:12–18 (Dr. Pedowitz unable to identify any other portions of the Specification that use or define the term “knotless”), 27:19–24 (admitting that the Specification does not identify any benefits of a “knotless fastener” (per Patent Owner’s proposed construction)).” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“In accordance with our construction of the term “knotless” fastener, we agree with Petitioner that because Fumex’s sleeve can be retained in place without tying a knot at the site where it is secured in place, Fumex discloses a “knotless” fastener as recited in claims 19 and 20. See Pet. 37– 38; Ex. 1002 (Jordan Decl.) ¶¶ 111–15. We adopt Petitioner and Dr. Jordan’s reasoning as our own. See id. We note that Patent Owner does not dispute that a knot is not tied in connection with securing Fumex’s fastener.20 See, e.g., Sur-reply 21 (arguing that “Fumex’s bone anchor retains the anchor in place in bone – not by tying a knot – but by forming a knot by pulling on one or both strands of the suture”). Instead, Patent Owner’s argument for why Fumex fails to teach a “knotless” fastener is based on its proposed claim construction. See PO Resp. 20 (“Fumex does not disclose a flexible hollow fastener that is ‘knotless’ as Patent Owner and Dr. Pedowitz have construed this term in this Proceeding.”); Sur-reply 1 (“It is undisputed that the claim construction of a ‘knotless’ fastener will decide this case.”), 23 (“If Patent Owner’s construction of “knotless” fastener is adopted, then claims 19 and 20 of the 20 In this regard, although Dr. Jordan referred to a “bigger knot” when discussing Fumex, he did not describe Fumex as requiring tying of a knot. See Ex. 2002 (Jordan Depo. Tr.), 19:21–20:8. Our construction requires elimination of knot-tying; it does not encompass the elimination of any structure that could be considered a “knot” in the general sense of the word. See Reply 21 n.6; Tr. 16:10–17:10. ‘453 Patent are not anticipated by Fumex, which fails to disclose a knotless fastener.”); see also Reply 21 (asserting that “Patent Owner has not disputed that Fumex meets Petitioner’s proposed construction of ‘knotless.’”). Because we reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “knotless” (see supra Section II.C.2), Patent Owner’s argument that Fumex fails to teach a “knotless” fastener is unavailing. In sum, for the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Fumex anticipates claims 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18–20.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 9,814,453 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,814,453 - Arthrex, Inc. v. P Tech, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2022-01066 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–26 are unpatentable under § 103, principally over Fumex and Grafton and the additional combinations; the Board did not reach alternative grounds 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“In our Institution Decision we considered these factors and determined based on the record before us that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a medical degree and at least two years of experience performing surgeries with implantable medical devices, such as suture anchors.” Inst. Dec. 9. Patent Owner agrees with this determination, stating Patent Owner and Dr. Pedowitz, Patent Owner’s expert, agree with the Board’s analysis at pages 7–9 of the Institution Decision that a POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have a medical degree and at least two years of experience performing surgeries with implantable medical devices, such as suture anchors. Ex 2001, ¶ 18. PO Resp. 21. After institution, Petitioner did not dispute our definition and did not further address the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Petitioner’s Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Accordingly, we maintain our definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as someone having a medical degree and at least two years of experience performing surgeries with implantable medical devices, such as suture anchors.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The ’259 Specification is permissive of multiple flexible elongated fastening members, generally termed sutures, teaching “the device may allow for the implantation of multiple sutures and fasteners in tissue with little or no repositioning of the device.” Ex. 1001, 4:61–63. The ’259 Specification does disclose a situation where “two passages 162 and 164 may be drilled in tissue, like a fractured bone 166, and two sutures or fastening members may be positioned through the passages, tensioned, and secured.” Id. at 18:11–14. But the ’259 Specification is also permissive of a single flexible elongated fastening member where a “suture 56 is looped through or connected with the fastener 52 such that one, two, or more sections, legs, strands, or portions of the suture 56 extend from the fastener 52.” Ex. 1001, 6:44–47. The intrinsic evidence therefore is open to Patent Owner’s interpretation of “a” as “one or more.” Nor does anything in the ’259 Specification supply a clear and manifest disavowal of that meaning.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“not established the necessary predicate that they coined the term “knotless” in the ’259 patent. The standard for “coining a term” or an inventor serving as their own lexicographer in a patent is set forth in Paulsen, which states Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. “Where an inventor chooses to be his own lexicographer and to give terms uncommon meanings, he must set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure” so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). When Petitioner and Dr. Jordan point to prior art showing that there was a legacy meaning of “knotless,” and that this meaning of “knotless” differs from Patent Owner’s reliance on a meaning of “knotless” not stated or discussed in the ’259 patent, Petitioner reasonably relies upon the prior art meaning of “knotless.” See Ex. 1002 ¶ 46. On the full trial record, Patent Owner has not identified statements within the Specification which provide notice that the term “knotless” was intended to have a meaning distinct from the use as a fastener in a location without the use of a knot, as understood by Dr. Jordan. Ex. 1002 ¶ 44. And Dr. Jordan expressly stated that he considered jumbled sutures pressed into a hole and pulled tight as not a knot (i.e., knotless) but rather simply functioning as an anchor. Ex. 2002, 40:11–41:9. 3. Conclusion We therefore interpret the term “knotless” in the context of the fasteners on this trial record as reading on a suture-restraining structure that can be retained in place without tying a knot at the site where the fastener is secured in place.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner asserts that a “POSITA would have found Grafton’s braided suture to be an obvious choice of suture thread for use in Fumex’s bone anchoring device” because “a suture including polyethylene could have been chosen by a POSITA for applications requiring a relatively higher suture strength. Grafton expressly describes suture strength as being ‘an important consideration in any surgical suture material.’ Ex. 1005, ¶[0004]; Ex. 1002, ¶153.” Pet. 49–50. Petitioner also asserts Grafton specifically states that the suture is “ideal” for “rotator cuff repair, Achilles [sic] tendon repair, patellar tendon repair, and ACL/PCL reconstruction”—some of the very types of procedures for which Fumex’s bone anchoring device is intended to be used. Ex. 1004, 4:38-41, 1:7-12, 2:1-8; Ex. 1005, ¶[0009]; Ex. 1002, ¶152-53. Pet. 50. Petitioner asserts a “POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Fumex’s bone anchoring device with Grafton’s suture thread. Ex. 1002, ¶154.” Pet 51. Petitioner asserts “a POSITA would have expected Grafton’s flexible suture to be as capable of being threaded through Fumex’s flexible sleeve as any other suture. Ex. 1002, ¶¶155-56.” Pet. 51. Patent Owner asserts that “Fumex fails to describe or suggest that at least a portion of its thread is fabricated with polyethylene as required in claim element [1.3]. For this reason alone, claim 1 is not obvious from Fumex.” PO Resp. 28. Patent Owner does not, however, dispute the obviousness of claim element [1.3] in Ground 2 based on “the combination of Fumex and Grafton due in part to the high suture strength of polyethylene as disclosed by Grafton. Petition, 50, Ex 1002, ¶ 153.” Id. at 38–39. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s undisputed analysis.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 10,376,259 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,376,259
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.