• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2024-01030 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20, 22–31, and 33–37 are unpatentable; claims 21 and 32 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the proposed combinations failed to establish motivation to combine or the required airtight seal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find that the proposals from the parties substantially overlap, such that it remains unclear whether any substantive difference exists. Notably, neither party argues that the minor differences in the proposals lead to a different outcome on any issues in this proceeding. Based on our review of the proposals, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal because it is consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’483 patent and prior art of record. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). The outcome of the issues addressed in this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9

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

    “hermetically sealed” module does not encompass waterproof modules that are not airtight. First, as Petitioner admits, as a general matter, “[s]omething that is hermetically sealed is sealed so as to be airtight.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269); PO Sur-reply 16. Petitioner later tries to argue that the specification puts a different spin on this meaning, but still acknowledges that “[o]utside the context of the ’483 patent, a hermetic seal is sometimes equated with an airtight seal.” See Pet. Post-hearing 2–3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269). Based on our review of the record, the “ordinary meaning” of “hermetically sealed” means “airtight,” and, as noted above, “airtight” is not the same thing as “waterproof.” Second, the claims support Patent Owner’s position by including dependent claims that separately claim a “hermetically sealed” module (claims 13 and 32) and a “waterproof” module (claims 15 and 34), strongly suggesting that the terms have a different scope to avoid rendering some claims redundant. See Ex. 1001, 11: 65–66, 12:3–4, 12:52–53, 12:55–56. Petitioner argues in its Post-hearing brief that claims requiring waterproof modules are “a narrower species” of hermetic seal, but fails to explain how hermetic, airtight, and waterproof seals would not fall within the scope of both claims using its approach. Pet. Post-hearing Reply 2. Petitioner’s earlier argument in its Reply also seems to cut against this position by asserting that the specification “treats hermitically sealing as conventional and equivalent to waterproofing,” with different dependent claims directed to two allegedly “equivalent” terms making little sense. Pet. Reply 14 (emphasis added). The most natural reading of the claim language suggests that “hermetically sealed” means airtight, and does not encompass modules that are waterproof but not airtight. Third, while the specification does not define “hermetically sealed” and uses “waterproof” and “hermetically sealed” in similar contexts, it does not suggest that “hermetically sealed” does not require an airtight seal consistent with its ordinary meaning. See Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18, 10:47–50). Instead, the specification states that hermetic seals prevent water from contacting electronics, which remains consistent with Patent Owner’s position because airtight hermetic seals are also waterproof. See Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18. The specification also states that “[t]he module preferably houses any of the aforementioned electrical components in a substantially water-proof and wear resistant/moisture resistant environment and is preferably hermetically sealed.” Id. at 10:47–50 (emphasis added). This passage supports Patent Owner’s position by suggesting that the preferable “hermetically sealed” module goes beyond mere water resistance. See PO Sur-reply 16–17. slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. Petitioner’s Anticipation Arguments and Evidence Petitioner argues that Howell-596 discloses every limitation of claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18, and points to specific portions of Howell-596 and expert testimony to support its arguments. See Pet. 10–20 (citing Ex. 1002; Ex. 1003). We have reviewed the evidence and arguments of record and find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the limitations in claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 are disclosed by Howell-596 for the reasons set forth in the Petition, which we adopt as our own. See id.11 Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Howell-596 anticipates claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Based on these undisputed points and the parties’ arguments, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to establish that a POSITA would have been motivated to locate Howell-596’s module housing 1700, which contains its UV detection system 1500, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never squarely addresses the fact that placing Howell-596’s UV detection system behind a user’s ear would negatively impact its performance. Pet. 31–33; Pet. Reply 17–22. As a result, even if we accept Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to the various advantages when placing electronics behind a user’s ear, it fails to establish a motivation to combine that requires placing Howell-596’s module housing 1700, and therefore its UV detection system, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never acknowledges the readily apparent disadvantages of placing a UV detection system behind the ear, where it may not work at all. See Pet. 31–33. Nor does Petitioner argue that, in its combination, adjustments would be made to ensure accurate operation of Howell-596’s UV detection system. See id. Similarly, Petitioner notes that both Howell-596 and Howell-833 disclose UV sensors behind the ear of a user, but those teachings do not establish that placing Howell-596’s module behind the ear would ensure proper operation of its UV detection system housed within that module. See Pet. Reply 17–22. Instead, even though Howell-596 discloses a sensor behind the ear of a user, it maintains the UV detection system in a module toward the front of the temple, away from the ear. See id. at 18–19; PO Surreply 21–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 205 (describing UV detection system 2102), Fig. 21 (showing UV detection system 2102 toward the front of the temple). Moreover, Petitioner’s reliance on the sensor placed behind the ear of the user in Howell-596 lacks weight because that sensor merely indicates that the device “is being worn by a user,” which serves a very different purpose than Howell-596’s UV detection system, which seeks to monitor a user’s exposure to UV radiation, a central purpose of Howell-596’s eyewear. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 205, code (57). Howell-833 also employs a UV sensor behind the ear, but Petitioner does not establish that it operates any differently than the “being worn” sensor in Howell-596, and therefore does not establish that Howell-596’s UV detection system would still work for its intended purposes in Petitioner’s proposed combination. See Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,708,483 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,708,483
• 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
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01070 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 12–19 are unpatentable; claims 10 and 11 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted grounds failed to establish unpatentability for those claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties do not identify, and we do not discern, any material difference between the parties’ proposed definitions. Based on the record currently before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The parties agree that “constrain” means to retain the module in a fixed position. Patent Owner further interprets “constrain” not to allow minor movement. This interpretation is consistent with the ’174 patent, which states, In some embodiments, the first electrical conductor may be configured to constrain or substantially constrain the electronics module. As used in this context, “constrain” may refer to when the first electrical conductor is configured to provide support (i.e. a restraining force) for the electronics module to retain the module in a fixed position within the temple. That is, the first electrical conductor may be configured to hold the electronics module in place. . . . The term “substantially constrain” is used in this context to account for some minor movement of the electronics module within the temple, but the conductor may generally hold the electronics module within the temple in place (such that it remains in an operative position). Ex. 1001, 11:50–12:3 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’174 patent distinguishes between an electrical conductor configure to “constrain” an electronics module and an electrical conductor configured to “substantially constrain” an electronics module, with the latter allowing for “some minor movement of the electronics module.” We therefore adopt Patent Owner’s interpretation of “constrain” as used in claim 1 to mean the first and second electrical conductors are configured to provide a restraining force that retains the module in a fixed position without allowing for minor movement of the electronics module.7 This interpretation also is consistent with Petitioner’s interpretation, which includes retaining the module in a fixed position within the temple. See Pet. 20.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “therefore, are unavailing. As correctly noted by Petitioner, Brunton discloses that “the [hearing aid] units may be provided with any suitable number of contact pins and the sockets provided with a corresponding number of tubular contacts that are positioned to receive the pins and in which the pins are frictionally retained.” Ex. 1003, 3:61–65 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Feland, testifies, Frictionally retaining the hearing aid unit’s pins in the cavity means that the socket contacts couple the hearing aid unit to the temple and constrain the hearing aid unit. Brunton’s socket contacts (corresponding to the claimed first and second electrical conductors) accordingly are configured to couple the hearing aid unit (corresponding to the claimed electronics module) to the temple to constrain the hearing aid unit. Ex. 1002 ¶ 64. We credit this testimony of Dr. Feland, which is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of a friction-fit connection. We give less credit to the testimony of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Oliver. Dr. Oliver testifies that “Brunton describes a cover plate that physically secures the sockets.” Ex. 2016 ¶ 87 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:71–4:1). However, this assertion is contradicted by the very disclosure Dr. Oliver quotes in his declaration, which explains that the material of the temple retains the sockets in place: “The sockets for the transistor and unit, such as the sockets 19 and 20, may be frictionally held in the cavity or may be embedded in the material of the temple, as may be desired.” Ex. 1003, 3:71–74 (emphases added); see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 87 (quoting same). Brunton does disclose a cover plate to cover the cavity, but Brunton does not disclose or suggest that the cover plate contacts or otherwise influences the hearing aid: “In the design shown, the temple is provided with a cover plate 31 that is secured in position over the unit 77 and the transistor 29 with screws 32.” Ex. 1003, 3:74–4:1; see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 87 (quoting same).” slip op. at 27

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

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner has set forth adequate reasoning to combine the teachings of Eichelberger and Howell-596. Howell-596 teaches electronic circuitry having UV radiation monitoring capability that can be used within eyewear. Ex. 1015, code (57). Howell-596 discloses that the UV detection system can be activated by a switch, which can be a capacitive touch switch. Id. ¶¶ 88, 191; Ex. 1019, 172. As discussed above, Eichelberger teaches a capacitive touch switch with electronic components disposed thereon. Ex. at 3:6–14, 3:43–50. We are persuaded that using Eichelberger’s capacitive touch switch in place of Howell-596’s would have been obvious. See Pet. 83–84; Ex. 1002 ¶ 221. e. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 15 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Howell-596 and Eichelberger.” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 8,801,174 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,801,174
• Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00633 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–15, 19, and 20 are unpatentable over Brown and Ho; claims 2–6 and 16–18 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Brown’s adapter tube 23 (i.e., the extended portion) does not extend radially from a longitudinal axis of valve assembly 13 (i.e., the toilet fill valve). Ex. 1021, Fig. 1. Mr. Jobin testifies that a POSITA would not be motivated to move adapter tube 23 from a vertical position to a radial position because “a radial extended portion is directly counter to the stated goals of Brown (e.g., reducing noise caused by turbulence), at least insofar system.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 251; see Ex. 1021, 1:9–62. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Petitioner’s analysis and Dr. Cameron’s testimony is conclusory and does not sufficiently explain why a POSITA would be motivated to make the proposed modification to Brown. For example, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how such a modification would result in a more compact toilet fill valve system that could be adapted to fit in more toilet tank designs. Further, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Cameron sufficiently address Mr. Jobin’s testimony regarding Brown’s desire for a quieter toilet. See Pet. Reply 23; Ex. 1036 ¶ 84. Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 is unpatentable over Brown and Ho.” slip op. at 35

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. Patent Owner argues that the ’993 patent claims were “fully supported as of the filing date of at least the ’606 Application . . . March 11, 2004” because the ’606 Application discloses regulating water flow and a POSITA would know that appropriate devices for regulating water flow includes nonadjustable waterflow restrictors. PO Resp. 68; PO Sur-reply 28–30. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The ’606 Application discloses: [W]hen the toilet fill valve 100 is open and water flows from the water inlet 103 to the water outlets 106 and into a toilet tank, an amount of water is also supplied to the bowl fill valve inlet 113 that flows through the bowl fill valve 109 and out the bowl fill valve outlet 116. By virtue of the manual setting of handle 119 valve 109 is regulated. In this manner, the flow of water is regulated so that enough water flows out of the bowl fill valve 109 to fill a toilet bowl without wasting any water down a drain. Ex. 1012, 47, ¶ 8 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1001, 2:28–39. As can be seen from the passage above, the ’606 Application discloses regulating an amount of water supplied to a toilet bowl using a valve (i.e., a water flow regulator). Ex. 2013 ¶ 288.” slip op. at 48

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “1. Analysis of Claims 1–18 Schuster is available as prior art if the ’993 patent is only entitled to its January 27, 2014, filing date and not entitled to claim priority to earlier filing dates of the parent applications. On its face, the ’993 patent claims priority to a number of earlier parent applications, including Application No. 12/786,904 (the ’904 Application) filed May 25, 2010, and the Application code 63. Petitioner contends that the ’993 patent is not entitled to claim priority to the filing date of the earlier parent applications, and, thus, Schuster, a parent application of the ’993 patent, is available as prior art.15 Pet. 91–92. Petitioner alleges that the earlier parent applications, specifically Application No. 12/786,904 (the ’904 Application), do not provide written description support for the ’993 patent’s claim term “water flow regulator.” According to Petitioner, “water flow regulator” encompasses both adjustable devices for restricting the flow of water (i.e., valves) and fixed devices for restricting the flow of water (i.e., restrictors). Pet. 15. Petitioner contends that the ’904 Application does not provide support for water flow restrictors and, thus, does not provide support for the broader claim term water flow regulators. Id. at 14–15, 91–92. Petitioner argues that only adjustable water flow devices (i.e., valves) are supported by the ’904 Application. Id. Petitioner, thus, asserts that earliest effective filing date of the ’993 patent’s claims is the filing date of its application, January 27, 2014. Id. at 92. To be entitled to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120 each application in the priority chain must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See Hollmer v. 14 The parties do not dispute that the ’993 patent and the earlier parent applications, including the ’904 Application and the ’606 Application, have the same pertinent portions of their specifications. See PO Resp. 71, n.16; Ex. 1004 ¶ 324. 15 Schuster issued on January 31, 2012, from Application No. 12/786,904, filed on May 25, 2010. Ex. 1029, code (21), (22), (45). Schuster, thus, issued more than one year prior to January 27, 2014.” slip op. at 46

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable

    “2. Analysis of Claims 19 and 20 Claim 19 depends from claim 14 and additionally recites, “wherein the waterflow regulator comprises an adjustable water flow regulator that is configured to adjust the flow rate of the second portion of the water based at least in part on a setting of the adjustable water flow regulator.” Ex. 1001, 12:16–20. Claim 20 depends from claim 14 and recites the same additional limitation. Id. at 12:21–24. Claims 19 and 20, thus, require the water flow regulator to be an adjustable water flow regulator. Petitioner indicates that the earlier parent applications provide written description support for an adjustable water flow regulator. Pet. 91 (“[T]he ’904 application specification makes it clear that the adjustability of the bowl fill valve is a desirable and essential feature of the invention”); PO Surreply 28. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 19 and 20 are unpatentable over Schuster.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 9,139,993 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,139,993
• Nokia Of America Corporation / AT&T Services, Inc. v. Iarnach Technologies LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2025 · IPR2024-00899 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 10, 11, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4, 12, 13, and 15 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not contest this proposed level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 5. Also, neither party argues that the precise level of ordinary skill would be dispositive in this proceeding. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is undisputed, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’892 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:19–2:8.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. The evidence of record, including the ’892 patent and its prosecution history,9 indicates that the ordinary and customary meaning of “transitioning . . . from . . . to” encompasses both direct and indirect transitions. Looking first to the claim language itself, the word “directly” appears in claims 1, 6, and 10, but not claim 14, presumptively suggesting that claim 14 was intended to more broadly capture systems with either direct or indirect transitions. See CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Holding otherwise would fail to give any effect to the word “direct” as it appears in claims 1, 6, and 10. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions methodologies that render phrases in claims superfluous).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “predictable and well-motivated variation of G.987.3, at the time of the claimed invention, to include a direct transition between the ONU’s two low-power states. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, . . . . If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”). We credit Dr. Sergienko’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce power consumption and would have looked to ways of modifying G.987.3 to further that design goal. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; see also Ex. 1007, 97 (“For a variety of reasons, it is desirable to reduce the power consumed by an ONU as much as possible . . . .”). We also credit Dr. Sergienko’s testimony that there were only a small number of ways to modify the state transitions in G.987.3’s ONU, and that it would have been obvious to consider those possibilities. Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Patent Owner does not contest this. Dr. Litvin concedes, for Patent Owner, that “there is no conceivable way the [ITU] did not consider the proposed transition” between the ONU’s two low-power states when drafting G.987.3, although he contends the standards body prohibited such direct transitions as “a conscious and reasoned design choice.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 108; see also id. ¶ 109 (opining that there were only four possible choices for transitions in the ONU, and the ITU “undoubtedly considered all of them, including the direct transition from . . . Listen and . . . Asleep”); PO Resp 24 (conceding that “G.987 explicitly considered the very direct transitions that Petitioner say would be used”). We also find persuasive Petitioner’s additional or alternative argument that Röger would have motivated modifying G.987.3 by allowing the ONU, while in sleep mode, to periodically turn on its receiver and check for messages from the OLT, which would have been direct transitions between “first” and “second” states as recited in claim 1. Pet. 20–22 & n.4; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–84. The evidence suggests that modifying G.987 as Petitioner proposes would have been within the abilities of a person of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention—either to add a direct transition between Listen and Asleep states or to allow the ONU, while in its sleep (both transmitter and receiver off) mode, to periodically turn on its receiver temporarily to listen for polling messages from the OLT, as Röger teaches. Pet. 11–12, 14–15, 19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 74. We also agree with Petitioner that there would have been motivation” slip op. at 26

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

    “We find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments that it would have been a predictable and well-motivated variation of G.987.3, at the time of the claimed invention, to include a direct transition between the ONU’s two low-power states. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, . . . . If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”). We credit Dr. Sergienko’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce power consumption and would have looked to ways of modifying G.987.3 to further that design goal. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; see also Ex. 1007, 97 (“For a variety of reasons, it is desirable to reduce the power consumed by an ONU as much as possible . . . .”). We also credit Dr. Sergienko’s testimony that there were only a small number of ways to modify the state transitions in G.987.3’s ONU, and that it would have been obvious to consider those possibilities. Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Patent Owner does not contest this. Dr. Litvin concedes, for Patent Owner, that “there is no conceivable way the [ITU] did not consider the proposed transition” between the ONU’s two low-power states when drafting G.987.3, although he contends the standards body prohibited such direct transitions as “a conscious and reasoned design choice.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 108; see also id. ¶ 109 (opining that there were only four possible choices for transitions in the ONU, and the ITU “undoubtedly considered all of them, including the direct transition from . . . Listen and . . . Asleep”); PO Resp 24 (conceding that “G.987 explicitly considered the very direct transitions that Petitioner say would be used”). We also find persuasive Petitioner’s additional or alternative argument that Röger would have motivated modifying G.987.3 by allowing the ONU, while in sleep mode, to periodically turn on its receiver and check for messages from the OLT, which would have been direct transitions between “first” and “second” states as recited in claim 1. Pet. 20–22 & n.4; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–84. The evidence suggests that modifying G.987 as Petitioner proposes would have been within the abilities of a person of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention—either to add a direct transition between Listen and Asleep states or to allow the ONU, while in its sleep (both transmitter and receiver off) mode, to periodically turn on its receiver temporarily to listen for polling messages from the OLT, as Röger teaches. Pet. 11–12, 14–15, 19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 74.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,806,892 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,806,892
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Empire Technology Development LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00896 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 25–28 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted Li-based combinations; claim 29 was not shown unpatentable over Li, Siam, and Tiirola.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “relevant to the challenged claims, as of the earliest claimed priority date, “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and two-to-three years of experience in the research, design, development, or testing of wireless data communication systems at the physical and media access control (MAC) layer.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–34). Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp.; see also Ex. 2022 ¶ 22 (adopting “Petitioners’ and Dr. Valenti’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.”) On the complete record, we determine Petitioner’s proposed level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’120 patent and the prior art of record. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 10

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

    “court in the parallel litigation issued a final claim construction. Pet. Reply 2; PO Sur-Reply 3–5. The district court construed “idle power consumption” as “a power consumed by the mobile station when the mobile station is powered on and waiting to send.” Ex. 1050, 12. The parties propose that we construe the claims to match the district court’s final construction. See Pet. Reply 2; PO Sur-Reply 3; Tr. 26. We agree and adopt the district court’s final claim construction of “idle power consumption” as “a power consumed by the mobile station when the mobile station is powered on and waiting to send,” for the reasons set forth below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “2. Additional Claim Terms For purposes of institution, we determine that no other claim terms require express construction. 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.”)). D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 25, 27, and 28 over Li and Siam” slip op. at 15

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

    “On the full record, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s argument that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Li and Siam to reduce total power consumption including idle power consumption (Li) and circuit power consumption (Siam). Both Li and Siam describe a need for reducing energy consumption in wireless devices. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 18; Ex. 1006, 875–76. Both references further describe switching from MIMO mode to another operating mode to reduce power consumption and optimize battery life. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 19; Ex. 1006, 875 (“[W]e dynamically adjust the ‘transmission mode’ . . . so as to minimize the total energy consumption.”). In sum, the references teach the same technique, i.e., mode switching, to achieve the same goal, i.e., reducing energy consumption, in similar devices, i.e., wireless devices. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence that one skilled in the art would have combined the Li and Siam with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 91, 92.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,798,120 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,798,120
• Weatherford U.S., L.P v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00990 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–12 and 14–20 are unpatentable; claims 1–10 and 21–23 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 29–37 are unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied as to them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of skill is uncontested. Patent Owner adopts the level of skill identified by Petitioner as: [at] the time of the alleged invention in 2018, a POSITA[2] would have had a B.S. degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or a similar technical discipline, with at least five years of experience in oil or gas well drilling, completion, and/or subsurface production operations or in technical support of such operations including at least some experience in unconsolidated formations utilizing sand control methods and means. Also,” slip op. at 8

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

    “on embodiments of Yeh with concentric sand screens having nine shunt tubes (six transport tubes and three packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 4A–B) and eccentric sand screens with four shunt tubes (two transport tubes and two packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 8A, 8C). See Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Yet, Petitioner’s reasoning as to why “a higher-pressure shunt tube assembly necessitated greater wall thickness” rests on an unspoken one to one comparison between the shunt tubes of the different systems. See id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 291–297 (Petitioner’s declarant comparing possible transport tubes of different pressure regions without considering or addressing any difference in the number of transport tubes). However, the embodiments relied on by Petitioner have different numbers of shunt tubes, and thus the greater wall thickness does not appear to be “necessitated” in the way inferred by Petitioner. Further, Petitioner’s analysis would seem to be most appropriate when comparing two concentric sand screens for different pressure regions, or two eccentric sand screens for different pressure regions. relies on Yeh’s teachings related to a horizontal well bore of 5000 feet for the “concentric screen → crossover tool → eccentric screen” arrangement, as well as, for why the concentric screen needs to be rated for a high pressure. Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Petitioner also refers to these features for why one of skill in the art would combine the teachings of Yeh and Yeh2. Id. at 32. However, on cross-examination, Petitioner’s declarant agreed that it is concentric sand screens having a 6x3 shunt tube design that would provide the noted benefits of being rated for a higher pressure and being more robust (as relied on in the Petition), as compared to eccentric sand screens. Ex. 2013, 42:20–43:8; Sur-reply 4–5. This also exposes another issue with Petitioner’s arguments. Though Petitioner identifies that one of skill in the art would be aware that material choice, wall thickness, and pipe diameter all impact burst pressure of a pipe (Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1017, 24 (Equation (14))), the Petition essentially ignores the fact that the claims do not require a single pipe in isolation. The claims require two shunt tube assemblies, each surrounding a base pipe within a wellbore. It is uncontested that a wellbore provides a confined space for such a system and thus any change in wall thickness of one pipe can result in a significant impact in the function of the other pipes. We find the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 290–297) unpersuasive when discussing wall thickness because it focusses on basic considerations of a standalone pipe, without sufficient consideration of the claimed completion assembly with its required pipe and tube structure. PO Resp. 20–26.” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In response to Patent Owner’s argument concerning Yeh’s embodiments relied on in the Petition, Petitioner argues for the first time that Patent Owner’s declarant “conceded, Yeh discloses that both concentric and 47:19–48:21). Petitioner does not provide a citation to Yeh or a citation to where the Petition relies on the same number of shunt tubes between concentric and eccentric screens. The deposition cited by Petitioner discusses Yeh at column 16, lines 26 through 35. However, the Petition does not cite or rely on these teachings of Yeh. Thus, we decline to consider this late argument.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring the petition to identify “with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Yeh and Yeh2 teaches determining the shunt tube system operating pressures associated with the distal end of the production zone, but also more generally, determining the operating pressures along the entire production zone. With this knowledge of the system operating pressures, Petitioner argues that one of skill in the art would have selected eccentric screens for the distal end of the production zone “at any point at which the slurry pressure dropped below the pressure capacity of the eccentric screen shunt tubes.” Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1005, 30:16–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 388). In other words, knowing that the pressure decreases as you approach the toe, Yeh’s low-pressure rated eccentric screens could be used from some point prior to and covering the toe. determined pressure.” PO Resp. 37–38. We disagree. As discussed above, the record supports Petitioner’s position that one of skill in the art would have “understood the need to determine the shunt tube system operating pressure throughout the horizontal wellbore.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 383; see also Pet. 64–65. We find convincing Petitioner’s argument that one of skill with this understanding of the system pressures would select a shunt tube system rated to not only address the distal end, but also to address the needs of the adjacent region, so long as the pressure rating supported such a selection. See Pet. 65–67; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 385–388.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,333,007 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,333,007
• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2025 · IPR2024-01052 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3–6 and 13–16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted Watanabe combinations were unsupported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “cameras.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–38). Petitioner further contends “[a]n advanced graduate degree in the disciplines cited above may make up for the work experience indicated above.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute and applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. PO Resp. 6. We find that Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with the ’832 patent specification and 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). Thus, we apply Petitioner’s proposal in our analysis.” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we construed “determin[ing] a viewing window for the visual content as a function of progress through the progress length” as “requiring determining a viewing window for different times of the video.” Inst. Dec. 21. Neither party disputes this construction. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 1–7. We maintain this same construction.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Thomason are in the same field of endeavor. Thomason describes a camera and method for correctly orientating pictures from the camera. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 2 29–40, Figs. 3a–3b. In particular, Thomason is interested in rotating and cropping images to reduce the effect of poor orientation. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 34, 36). Pacurariu likewise describes aligning and resizing/cropping of a captured image to correct poor orientation. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 3, 45–56, Figs. 5A–5C. The preponderance of the evidence also supports that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the Pacurariu’s teachings with Thomason to predictably improve Thomason. Thomason teaches correct rotation of video data and makes use of rotation sensor to correct rotated images. Pet. 19–21 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 27, 29, 35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–77). Pacurariu similarly uses sensors and measures tilt angle of the camera. Id at 21–22 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51–52, Fig. 6; Ex. 1002 ¶ 78). Pacurariu further teaches that its tilt data angle can be stored for each “video frame.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 52). Petitioner, with support from credible testimony of Dr. Katsaggelos, explains how the teachings of Thomason and Pacurariu could be successfully combined. Id. at 23 (citing, for example, Ex. 1002 ¶ 81). A person of ordinary skill in the art could have known that Thomason’s system could be improved by saving rotation data for each video frame and correcting images on a frame-by-frame basis. Id. at 23–24. The testimony of Dr. Katsaggelos is credible in this regard. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81. Petitioner and Dr. Katsaggelos explain the references’ teachings and, based on these teachings, assert that a person having skill in the art would have had reason to combine with reasonable expectation of success based on those teachings. Reason to combine may properly come from the references themselves. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (explaining reason to combine may come from “interrelated teachings of multiple patents”). Based on the evidence presented, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Thomason and Pacurariu with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–81, 89–92; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 8–9, 27, 29, 35; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26, 41, 46, 51–52, 55–57, Figs. 6, 7.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner

    “evaluating nexus between the claimed invention and objective evidence of nonobviousness, also referred to as secondary considerations. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 at 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential). We first consider whether Patent Owner has demonstrated “that its products are coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims,” resulting in a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Id. at 33. If not, that “does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. (quoting Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75).” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 11,336,832 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,336,832
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00973 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Reiner and over Reiner with Takahara; claims 2, 8, and 14 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “patentability based solely on arguments considered above in the context of claim 4. See, e.g., PO Resp. 42–43, 47–52. Therefore, Patent Owner has waived any other argument. See Inst. Dec. 44; Paper 10, 10. We adopt Petitioner’s arguments concerning these claims having been obvious over Reiner as our own in this Decision. See Pet. 40–44, 50–56, 57–70, 71; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 134–142, 154–168, 174–221, 227. Accordingly, we conclude a preponderance of the evidence establishes these claims are unpatentable as having been obvious over Reiner.” slip op. at 83

  • Expert testimonyOther
  • Skill levelOther

  Patent outcomesUS 9,184,157 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,184,157
• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00984 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable as obvious over Meulen and Chao; claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because Meulen does not disclose transforming an image captured by its camera.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science, or equivalent field, and two years of experience working on image or video processing, or digital cameras,” or alternatively “would have four years of experience working on image or video processing, or digital cameras.” Pet. 6. Petitioner further argues that an “advanced graduate degree” may “make up for the work experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” PO Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 19–20). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’413 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “From the outset we note that the words of the claim recite “non- uniformly shift[ing] the pixels” and do not recite a “non-linear” transformation. This favors Petitioner’s position, which is based directly off the definition of “non-uniform,” over Patent Owner’s position, which substitutes “non-linear” for “non-uniform.” Generally, then, we would determine the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term in the context of the entire Specification. Here, however, the ʼ413 patent does not mention “uniform” or “non-uniform” shifting of pixels anywhere except in the claims. The Specification, therefore, provides limited guidance, by itself, as to the ordinary and customary meaning of the term. Nonetheless, even reviewing the portions of the Specification cited by the parties, we see no clear or unambiguous effort to limit the challenged claims to require only non-linear transformations in which the pixels to which a transformation is applied do not have the same amount of shift. is not non-linear. Pet. Reply 1. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the center circle of Figure 2B maintains the original circular shape after the transformation is applied to the image which contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that no two pixels will have the same amount of shift. Pet. Reply 1–2. We agree. In Figure 2B of the ʼ413 patent, the center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest. Ex. 1001, 4:19–21. After the input image goes through linear scaling (step 204) and then non-linear warping (step 206) the circles become more vertically compressed as they approach the top and bottom edges and more horizontally stretched as they approach the left and right edges. Id. at 4:22–30. But “the center circle is fully corrected so that it maintains the original circular shape of the corresponding circle in the input image 212.” Id. at 4:23–25. This means that at least some pixels, such as those of the center circle, undergo the same amount of shift after being transformed.” slip op. at 11

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

    “readable instructions” of claims 1 and 2 must occur in a particular order. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the step of “determine a portion within the input image” must occur after “obtain[ing] an image” and before “apply[ing] a transformation to the input image.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 59). Petitioner argues, on the other hand, that the specification does not require such an order and, in fact, describes an embodiment where such an order is not followed. Pet. 3. We determine that the “determine a portion within the input image” step does not need to occur after the “obtain an image” step and before the “apply a transformation to the input image” step. As Patent Owner itself points out, claims 1 and 2 are apparatus and system claims respectively, and an ordering of the limitations of such claims is not necessary. PO Resp. 17. Even if we were to treat the apparatus and system claims as reciting the steps of a method, “as a general rule the claim is not limited to performance of the steps in the order recited, unless the claim explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order.” Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). We see nothing in the claims that would cause us to break this general rule. Patent Owner argues that the claims imply a “specific order because the ‘determine a portion’ requirement operates on ‘the [obtained] input image’ and defines the ‘portion’ that is necessary for the 23; Ex. 2027 ¶ 59). Although the steps are recited in a specific order in the claim, as they necessarily must be, the claim does not expressly specify that the certain steps must occur before or after other instructions, nor does logic imply such a requirement. For example, if certain characteristics of the image are known before the image is obtained (e.g. the size, dimensions, resolution, aspect ratio, or content etc.) the determination of the portion of the image could be made before the image is obtained. These characteristics may be based on the specific device taking the image or the subject matter of the image, both of which may be known before the image is captured or obtained. It is, therefore, not necessary that the image be obtained in order for a portion of the image to be determined. Similarly, we do not find the written description to expressly or implicitly specify an order the claimed step of “determine a portion of the input image.” For example, the written description of the ʼ413 patent states that in Figure 2B “the center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest that is most fully corrected and the distortion increases in each direction as the frame boundary is approached.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–22. Patent Owner emphasizes that this disclosure implies that an input image is obtained before the center portion is chosen. PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:63–64, 4:19–22). But the description of this embodiment does not expressly recite an order. For example, the description of Figure 2A explains that “an input image is obtained” in step 202, “the image is then scaled” in step 204, and a “non-linear warping is then applied” in step 206. Ex. 1001, 3:63–4:3. This description does not mention “determin[ing] of a portion of the image” as a separate step or as part of the listed steps, and therefore, does not specify an order in which this step must occur. is configured so that some areas of the image are fully corrected geometrically, while some other areas are distorted. . . . [T]he center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest that is most fully corrected and the distortion increases in each direction.” Id. at 4:17–19. This excerpt from the ʼ413 patent, which the Patent Owner specifically relies on (PO Resp. 19), also does not specify an order in which the determination step (choosing of the region of interest) takes place. Moreover, because the ʼ413 patent states that the warp module is configured so that some areas are fully corrected while others are not, the determination step could take place at the time the warp module was configured, presumably before the image was obtained. Finally, the ʼ413 patent states that “in the case, of video, the area may dynamically change between images (e.g. to follow a moving object).” Ex. 1001, 4:34–36. Patent Owner argues that this description “requires first obtaining the image in order to locate the object that is being followed.” PO Resp. 19–20. This embodiment is related to the case of video or a moving object, which the challenged claims do not mention. We, therefore, decline to limit the scope of the claim based on this embodiment. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and cited evidence we determine Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Meulen and Chao. For example, Petitioner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious that when performing image scaling, pixels from the input to output positions are shifted based on a scaling factor.” Pet. 91. Meulen teaches scaling but does not provide the details regarding scaling. E.g., Ex. 1007, 1:55–56, 4:37–49. We agree that in light of Meulen’s disclosure of scaling, a POSITA would have looked to other references, such as Chao, for further details on how to perform scaling. Dr. Katsaggelos provides credible support, testifying that “Meulen mentions ‘compression and/or scaling,’ and provides details on how to perform compression. But Meulen does not disclose the details of how to perform scaling. A POSITA when faced with Meulen and having the knowledge about scaling would have been motivated to turn to a prior art reference that discloses the details of scaling.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 262. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner provides no motivation to combine other than asserting that it involves combining prior art elements. PO Resp. 35 (quoting Pet. 92). As explained above, however, Petitioner does more than just assert that the motivation involves combining prior art elements. Instead, Petitioner explains that Meulen discusses both compression and scaling, and provides details regarding compression but does not provide details on how to scale. Pet. 91–92; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 262–262. Thus, Meulen teaches that scaling was a known technique. See Hybritech, (“a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art”). Dr. Katsaggelos testifies that, in this situation, a POSITA would have looked to Chao for details regarding scaling. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 262–263. We determine this establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSITA would have had reason to combine Meulen’s teachings with Chao. Patent Owner draws a distinction between Meulen and Chao, arguing that “Meulen is concerned with modifying content from a media source to be displayed on a device’s screen while Chao, by contrast, is directed to changing the aspect ratio of a document intended for printing.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 89–90). Patent Owner’s argument is contradicted, however, by Chao’s disclosure which states that “after all the background and foreground elements in the image have been resized . . . [t]he image may be output by displaying the image on or as part of: a display screen such as a computer monitor, camera screen, printer screen, printed page, projected image, or the like.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 32. Patent Owner argues that Meulen’s system avoids distortion near the middle where the user’s focus is more likely to be, while Chao, on the other hand, is directed to avoiding distortion of stylized borders on differently sized pages. PO Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:26–29; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1, 25; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 91–92). This argument reads the prior art too narrowly and does not address Petitioner’s combination. Petitioner does not rely on Chao for its teaching of avoiding distortion near the borders of the image, but rather on its teaching of scaling the image while maintaining the design intent of the original image. Ex. 1008 ¶ 22; Ex. 1014 ¶ 67. Thus, Petitioner is applying Chao’s techniques of scaling (regardless of where the area of 92. Finally, Patent Owner argues that Chao’s approach of stretching/shrinking only the background and uniformly scaling entire foreground objects is suitable for graphic design but incompatible with Meulen which is concerned with adapting externally derived media source content for display on a fixed size screen. PO Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 93). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because it does not address Petitioner’s combination. Petitioner relies on Chao’s teaching of stretching/shrinking of background elements and applies that stretching/shrinking to Meulen’s images displayed on its screen. Pet. 91–92 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 28, 63; Ex. 1002 ¶ 263). The fact that Chao applies its teaching to graphic design does not prevent a POSITA from applying those teachings to Meulen’s media content displayed on its screen.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,015,413 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,015,413

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.