- Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 31, 2025 · IPR2024-01085 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–10, 17, 19, 22–26, 28–30, 32, 33, 36, 41, 48, 58–62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 73, 77, 82, and 83 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“The difference between the parties’ positions is solely that Petitioner includes “human-computer interaction” as a relevant degree and “human computer interfaces” as relevant working experience. We need not resolve that difference, because no matter which stated level of ordinary skill is applied, all of our findings and conclusions would be the same and because neither party asserts the other party’s expert is not qualified as an expert. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 9. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.5 C.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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))). Petitioner asserts that “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner agrees that “no formal constructions of any claim terms are necessary.” PO Resp. 4. We agree with the parties that no express construction of any claim term is necessary. D.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner (PO Resp. 13) that when Ording refers to user interfaces that are “intuitive and transparent,” “transparent” in that context does not mean optically transparent but something readily understandable, like the preceding word “intuitive.” That makes more sense in context. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Mahon, explains that Ording’s paragraph 28, where the phrase “intuitive and transparent” is found, is not concerned with optical transparency, but with increasing user satisfaction with portable devices by offering multifunctional operations on user interfaces based on finger input. Ex. 2012 ¶ 54. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Cockburn explains why “transparent” in that context should mean optically transparent. We credit the testimony of Dr. Mahon, and reproduce paragraph 28 of Ording below: The various applications that may be executed on the device may use at least one common physical user interface device, such as the touch screen. One or more functions of the touch screen as well as corresponding information displayed on the device may be adjusted and/or varied from one application to the next and/or within a respective application. In this way, a common physical architecture (such as the touch screen) of the device may support the variety of applications with user interfaces that are intuitive and transparent. Ex. 1006 ¶ 28. We credit Dr. Mahon’s testimony that “Ording is addressing [in paragraph 28] user interfaces that are user-friendly and intuitive to navigate and operate.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 55.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The Zlider widget already is the least intrusive in the form as disclosed in the Ramos Paper/Ramos Video, placed off to the side of image content, not above and overlapping with image content. Petitioner’s semitransparency solution is for a self-created problem that otherwise does not exist, i.e., blocking the image by placing the Zlider widget directly over image content in Ording’s device. This is not reasoning with rational underpinning for making the Zlider widget partially semitransparent. Even assuming that the Zlider widget is properly placed directly over a camera image, making the Zlider widget semitransparent does not solve the intrusion problem, because the image and the Zlider widget may obscure each other, as shown in these illustrations provided by Patent Owner: [The illustrations show interference between a semitransparent Zlider widget and an underlying image] In its Reply, Petitioner asserts that it would have been well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to make adjustments to address a problem caused by such obscuring, such as by making the Zlider widget more visible as shown below: [The illustration shows one way Petitioner asserts one of ordinary skill in the art may apply to solve the obscuring issue (Reply 5–6)] Petitioner’s argument is misplaced. Although there may be graphic display techniques one of ordinary skill in the art may adopt to reduce the visibility problem if the Zlider widget were moved to directly above the image content as Petitioner proposes, that does not cure the problem of lacking a reasonable motivation to place the Zlider widget of the Ramos Paper/Ramos Video directly over image content. Still, there is the least obscuring and the least intrusion with the Zlider widget remaining where it is shown to be in the Ramos Paper/Ramos Video, side-by-side relative to the image content. It is irrational to make a modification that creates a problem, solely on the basis that a solution may be available to reduce the severity of the problem. Indeed, such a strained rationale shows that hindsight has played a part on Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have put the Zlider widget over content as required by the claims.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,649,580 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,649,580 - Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 30, 2025 · IPR2024-01072 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–26 are unpatentable as obvious over the listed prior-art combinations; the Board also denied Patent Owner’s motion to strike.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’960 patent. Dec. on Inst. 10. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or manufacturing engineering; mechatronics; electrical engineering plus coursework in mechanical engineering, manufacturing engineering, or mechatronics; or a similar technical degree,” and “at least 2 years of experience designing eyewear and/or consumer electronics,” and that “[w]ork experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for work experience.” Id. (citing Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28)) (alteration in original). Patent Owner proposes a different definition for one of ordinary skill in the art, but does not specifically address any deficiencies in Petitioner’s proposed definition. PO Resp. 6. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’960 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis herein, however, does not turn on which of the parties’ definitions we adopt.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Here, neither party sets forth any term for claim construction. Pet. 11; PO Resp. 5–6; Pet. Reply 1–2. We determine that we do not need to construe any term to resolve the disputes between the parties. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). We afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“A reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Below we focus on the first of these tests. “We determine the field of endeavor ‘by reference to explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.’” Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325)). We agree with Petitioner and find that the ’960 patent is in the field of eyewear and consumer electronics. Pet. 13. The ’960 patent discloses that its “subject matter is directed to electronic eyewear modules and systems to be worn by a wearer, whereby an electronic eyewear system with a docking station can be easily joined with a plurality of electronic application modules.” Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:4; Pet. 9. We also agree with Petitioner that the ’960 patent acknowledges “a need for a single pair of fashionable eyewear capable of . . . utilizing one or more of a multitude of different application devices while the wearer is wearing the eyewear.” Ex. 1001, 1:59–62; Pet. Reply 13. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he ’960 [p]atent pertains to the field of wearable embedded electronics, namely ‘commercial eyewear comprising electronics.’” PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:24–25). We view the parties’ descriptions of the field of the ’960 patent to be substantively the same.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We also find persuasive Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Feland’s testimony that Jannard’s “application module for eyewear is one such suitable device in which to incorporate Rosenblatt’s key or its functionality.” Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 156). This argument and testimony are consistent with Rosenblatt’s teaching of a wide variety of suitable devices. Compare id. and Ex. 1003 ¶ 156, with Ex. 1007 ¶ 7. Moreover, as Petitioner argues, Rosenblatt teaches that its “key . . . may include a clip or other connecting mechanism for attaching [the] key . . . to an object that the user typically carries,” such as “a user’s wallet, cellular telephone, personal media device (e.g., an iPod), wired headset, wireless headset, watch, bag, belt, article of clothing, or any other suitable object.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 43 (emphasis added). We find persuasive Dr. Feland’s testimony that Jannard’s eyewear system is a carried object like a wired or wireless headset in the context of Rosenblatt’s teaching. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 156; Ex. 1007 ¶ 43. We also find persuasive Dr. Feland’s testimony that incorporating Rosenblatt’s key or its functionality into Jannard’s application module “desirably ‘provid[es] functional fashion having device operation capabilities,’ which is consistent with Rosenblatt recommendations.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 156 (quoting Ex. 1007 ¶ 58) (alteration in original); Ex. 1007 ¶ 58 (“[T]he key may be integrated with operation capabilities.”). We also find persuasive Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Feland’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rosenblatt’s key or its functionality in Jannard’s application module to achieve the benefits disclosed in Rosenblatt, including controlling host devices responsive to wireless communication with Jannard’s application module. Pet. 47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 156. We view this as using a known technique (Rosenblatt’s teaching of incorporating a key or its functionality into an electronic device) to improve a similar device (Jannard’s eyewear and application module with wireless communication for functions) in the same way. 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 improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”); see also Pet. 48; Ex. 1003 ¶ 157.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,598,960 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,598,960 - Ascentcare Dental Product, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2025-01104 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2025). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon institution of inter partes review, the review proceeds “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Based on our consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“the ’329 patent was filed would have had “at least a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering or a related field with at least two years’ experience designing dental devices” and that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s definition is overly narrow and argues that “[n]othing in the claims of the ’329 Patent requires experience designing ‘dental devices.’” Prelim. Resp. 19. According to Patent Owner, “the claims are directed to the structural components of a dental isolation mouthpiece, and an individual with a mechanical engineering degree and experience designing medical devices would be a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for purposes of the ’329 Patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 2030 ¶ 83). We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill for purposes of this Decision. We determine that this level of ordinary skill in the art—i.e., an individual with a mechanical engineering degree and experience designing medical devices—is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’329 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the current record. Moreover, our determination in this Decision would be the same were we to adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner asserted “[p]lain and ordinary meaning” for “a plurality of protrusions” in claims 9 and 30, whereas Petitioner proposed “an internal structure attached to the second wall that prevents the collapse of the first and second wall during suction.” Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2039). Here, Patent Owner argues that “protrusion” should be construed to mean “a structure attached to the second wall but not the first wall,” with respect to claims 1, 9, and 30, and to mean “a structure attached to the first wall but not the second wall,” with respect to claim 21. Id. at 24. Patent Owner also argues that structure attached to both the first wall and the second wall is inconsistent with “the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘protrusions’ in light of the specification.” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 111–112). We address Patent Owner’s arguments in the context of our analysis of Petitioner’s contentions below.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“combination deficient. Petitioner argues that Park’s walls are “likely to collapse under the suction force,” based not on Park, but on Baughan, which states that “discs” in Baughan are used to prevent the “flexible sleeve” of Baughan from collapsing. Pet. 89. (citing Ex. 1007, 3:46–48). Petitioner reasons that because Park uses silicone, a flexible material, Park’s walls must also collapse like Baughan. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32, 34). Petitioner, however, directs us to no disclosure in Park to suggest that the material used in Park or the arrangement of Park would collapse in the same manner as Baughan. Indeed, if Park’s mouthpiece collapses as Petitioner speculates, it would appear likely to render Park inoperable. See Ex. 2030 ¶ 205. Additionally, Petitioner recognizes that in Park “the sidewalls and the insertion part 111 would help resist this collapsing force,” and states that in Park it “is unclear whether the mouth prop 100 includes a spine or other rigid structure running through the middle of the mouth prop 100.” Pet. 89– 90. Thus, whether Park is susceptible to collapse is, at best, unknown. See Prelim. Resp. 48 (asserting that a person of ordinary skill would have known “that silicone can have varying degrees of hardness, tensile strength, and elasticity such that Park’s mouthpiece would not necessarily collapse under suction”) (citing Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 189–90; Ex. 2036; Ex. 2037). Even assuming, as Petitioner asserts, that “additional anti-collapsing structure would assist at the weakest areas of the tongue retractor” in Park, Petitioner offers insufficient reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill would have turned to Baughan and modified the structure taught by Baughan to instead conform to what is recited in claim 1. Petitioner’s suggestion that “common sense” would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structures of Baughan to solve a problem with collapse in Park that Park does not suggest was a problem is likewise unpersuasive and insufficient. Pet. 93 (further asserting that “it was well known in the art how to make projections on a flat surface”). Petitioner’s reliance on Johnson as generically teaching that protrusions can be on flat surfaces does not supply a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed modifications outside of improper hindsight. See also Prelim. Resp. 58, 59 (arguing that the projections in Johnson are on a semicircular surface, not on a flat surface as Petitioner asserts) (citing Ex. 1008 Figs. 4, 5). Based on the evidence and arguments presented, we determine that Petitioner fails to show sufficiently for purposes of instituting inter partes review that the asserted combination of Park, Baughan, and Johnson, or in further combination with Zheng, teaches “protrusions protruding from an interior surface” of one wall of the mouthpiece “towards” an opposing wall of the mouthpiece, as required by claim 1, or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the asserted references in the manner alleged by Petitioner.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,011,329 - Ipr2025-01188InstitutedPTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2025-01188 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Institution was granted in IPR2025-01188 after the Director found the petition met the statutory merits threshold and no non-discretionary considerations warranted denial.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and § 324(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, or that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable, as applicable, and no other non-discretionary considerations warrant denial of institution. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review or post-grant review is granted in the following proceedings: IPR2025-010611 IPR2025-01205 PGR2025-00067 IPR2025-01173 IPR2025-01206 PGR2025-00068 IPR2025-01188 IPR2025-01207 PGR2025-00069 IPR2025-01189 IPR2025-01208 IPR2025-01203 IPR2025-01209 IPR2025-01204 IPR2025-01270” slip op. at 1
- Director reviewOther
“1 This proceeding is stayed until further notice in view of the pending Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2024-00757, IPR2024- 00759, IPR2024-00760, IPR2024-00767, IPR2024-00768, IPR2024-00769, and IPR2024-00770.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,272,535 - Ipr2025-01173InstitutedPTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2025-01173 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Institution
The Director granted institution in IPR2025-01173 after finding the petition showed the required likelihood of prevailing and no other non-discretionary considerations warranted denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“merits, the petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, or that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable, as applicable, and no other non-discretionary considerations warrant denial of institution. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review or post-grant review is granted in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 1
- Director reviewOther
“Before JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 11,673,805 - Ipr2025-01141Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2025-01141 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-01141 after finding that the petitioner failed to meet the applicable merits threshold.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and § 324(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, or that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable, as applicable. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review or post-grant review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2025-01141 IPR2025-01182 PGR2025-00061 IPR2025-01181 IPR2025-01183” slip op. at 1
- Director reviewOther
“Before JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 8,013,568 - Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,708,483 - Cholla Energy LLC / Obm, Inc. v. Lancium LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2024-01361 · APJ Amber L Hagy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable under § 103: claims 1, 2, and 9–12 over Kiani and Pelio; claims 4–8 over Kiani, Pelio, and Chapel; claim 3 over Kiani, Pelio, and Belady; and claims 13–16 over Kiani, …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art as someone that “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to green datacenters, including the use of renewable energy in powering datacenters, workload distribution amongst geographically distributed datacenters, and power management techniques for datacenters.” Dec. 9 (citing Pet. 15; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner has not filed a Patent Owner Response, and therefore Petitioner’s assessment and our initial determination remain unchallenged. We maintain our determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art as stated in our Institution Decision, and we apply it herein. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ261 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts “for the purposes of this proceeding and the grounds presented herein, no claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 15. As noted, Patent Owner has not submitted a Patent Owner Response, and hence also does not propose any terms for construction. We determine that no claim term requires express interpretation. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “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 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 11,283,261 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,283,261 - Caption Health, Inc v. University Of British ColumbiaInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-01066 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, including failure to show the claimed image-receiving quality-assessment neural network.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’591 patent. Thus, we do not institute this inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Because Petitioner’s formulation is supported by declaratory testimony and appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art and the ’591 patent, and because Patent Owner does not provide any supporting evidence, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–33. Our decision would be the same regardless of the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s formulations.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties do not propose any express claim construction. Pet. 11– 12; Prelim Resp. 17. We also determine that no express claim construction is necessary for our Decision, apart from that discussed in our below analysis. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms in controversy must be construed “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner also fails to provide sufficient rationale and a reasonable expectation of success in combining Krishnan and Lee to arrive at a quality assessment neural network configured to receive an image. See Pet. 34–37. For example, the Petition lacks an explanation of why a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Krishnan’s quality assessment neural network to be configured to receive an image, instead of extracted features, in view of Lee’s image-receiving category classifying neural network. Id. Without such further explanation, Petitioner’s challenge falls short. Petitioner’s argument that neural networks for image quality assessment were “well-known” is not persuasive—it does not address the particular scope of limitation 1i, which also requires that the neural network is configured to receive images. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 47–51, 118; Exs. 1017, 1023, 1024, 1026). Petitioner’s argument that combining Krishnan and Lee “would merely amount to applying known work from the field . . . to yield predictable results” is not persuasive because the Petition ties this reasoning to modifying Krishnan with Lee’s view-category-specific assessment parameters, not modifying Krishnan’s quality assessment neural network to receive images instead of extracted features. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 126). Lastly, we note Petitioner’s expert’s discussion regarding neural networks for image quality assessments. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 43–53 (citing Exs. 1010, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1023, 1024, 1026). However, the Petition does not explain how this evidence demonstrates that the proposed combination teaches or suggests a quality assessment neural network configured to receive images, or that such would have been obvious in the context of the claimed invention. See Pet. 32–37.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,129,591 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-01110 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16, finding a reasonable likelihood they are obvious over Kim and over Chu and Choi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable 1 Deputy Director Stewart was recused in this matter. claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least 3 years of experience in the research, design or development of wireless communication devices, systems, and/or networks, or the equivalent, as of the Critical Date,” and that “[i]ncreased educational experience can make up for less work experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, except as to the date that pertains to such skill level. Prelim. Resp. 4–5. Namely, Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner is incorrect” that “the ’171 Patent is entitled to an effective date of no earlier than January 22, 2021.” Id. at 5. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’171 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of required experience.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“claim construction standard as that applied in federal courts in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is generally referred to as the Phillips standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under the Phillips standard, “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “Petitioner submits that no formal claim constructions are necessary.” Pet. 1–2. Similarly, “Patent Owner does not contend that any formal claim construction is necessary” at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 5. For the purpose of institution, we need not explicitly construe any claim terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 870–71 (Fed. Cir. 2010). For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must [] convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.”), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”). On the record before us, we do not agree that the ’171 Patent is entitled to a filing date earlier than Jan. 11, 2021. In particular, we do not agree that PCT ’199 describes the invention in enough detail such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could conclude that the inventor was in possession of the invention as of the March 4, 2016 filing date. The disclosures of PCT ’199 cited by Patent Owner to show written description support show: (1) transmission packets for multi-user uplink data, which includes padding such that multi-user upstream data transfers from each resource terminate at the same time (see Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 17–21); (2) performing padding on a trigger frame that triggers multi-user simultaneous transmission, where the trigger frame includes AID information of the performing preset padding before the FCS field of the trigger frame according to one embodiment (see Ex. 1012 ¶ 136, Fig. 20); and (4) inserting redundant AID information prior to the FCS field of the trigger frame, according to another embodiment (see Ex. 1012 ¶ 136, Fig. 20). PCT ’199 does not describe the invention in enough detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor possessed a frame for allocating resource for uplink (UL) multi-user (MU) transmission to one or more terminals that includes the AID field set to a value related to a first padding field, when the padding field is included in the frame. In particular, we discern no disclosure that conveys that the inventor possessed the following: (1) an AID field for the MU UL resource allocation frame is set to a value, (2) that the AID field is set to a value related to the padding field, and (3) that the AID field is set to a value related to the padding field, and conditioned on the inclusion of the AID field in the frame. Moreover, to the extent that Patent Owner’s assertions are premised on the PCT ’199’s disclosure of a preset padding being performed before the FCS field of the trigger frame and the disclosure of inserting redundant AID information prior to the FCS field of the trigger frame, we note that these disclosures are directed to two embodiments. See Ex. 1012 ¶ 136, Fig. 20. PCT ’199 does not provide any suggestion that the two embodiments are used together, or that the redundant AID information of one embodiment can serve as a preset padding of the other embodiment.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,716,171
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.