Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02035/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02035-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
PalTalk Holdings, Inc.
Appellant
Riot Games, Inc.
Appellee
Valve Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

RIOT GAMES, INC., VALVE CORPORATION,

Appellees

______________________

2019-2035, 2019-2036, 2019-2037, 2019-2038

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-

00129, IPR2018-00130, IPR2018-00131, IPR2018-00132, 

IPR2018-01238, IPR2018-01241, IPR2018-01242, 

IPR2018-01243.

______________________

Decided: June 16, 2020

______________________

DOUGLAS R. WILSON, Armond Wilson LLP, Austin, TX, 

for appellant. Also represented by MICHELLE ARMOND, 

Newport Beach, CA. 

 CONSTANTINE L. TRELA, JR., Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, for appellee Riot Games, Inc. Also represented by 

NATHANIEL C. LOVE, JOHN WEATHERBY MCBRIDE; SCOTT 

BORDER, SAMUEL DILLON, Washington, DC. 

Case: 19-2035 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 06/16/2020
2 PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC. v. RIOT GAMES, INC.

 SHARON A. ISRAEL, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Houston, TX, for appellee Valve Corporation. Also represented 

by KYLE E. FRIESEN; PATRICK A. LUJIN, Kansas City, MO;

REYNALDO BARCELO, Barcelo, Harrison & Walker, LLP, 

Newport Beach, CA. 

 ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit 

Judges.

PROST, Chief Judge.

PalTalk Holdings, Inc., appeals four final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in 

inter partes review proceedings related to U.S. Patent 

Nos. 5,822,523 and 6,226,686. The Board concluded that 

all challenged claims are unpatentable under 

35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the cited prior art. See Riot 

Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2018-00129, 

Paper 37, at 66 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2019); Riot Games, Inc. 

v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2018-00130, Paper 37, at 

72 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2019); Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk 

Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2018-00131, Paper 37, at 50 

(P.T.A.B. May 14, 2019); Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2018-00132, Paper 36, at 66 (P.T.A.B. 

May 14, 2019).1 

PalTalk timely appealed. PalTalk challenges the 

Board’s obviousness determination only with respect to 

certain dependent claims. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

1 During the course of the inter partes review proceedings, the Board joined petitioner Valve Corp. and its 

instituted inter partes reviews (respectively Case Nos. 

IPR2018-01238, IPR2018-1241, IPR2018-01242, and 

IPR2018-01243) to each of the four proceedings.

Case: 19-2035 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 06/16/2020
PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC. v. RIOT GAMES, INC. 3

We review the Board’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness de novo and its underlying factual determinations for substantial evidence. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 

1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Substantial evidence is something less than the weight of the evidence but more than a 

mere scintilla of evidence.” In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 

1376, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

PalTalk appeals the Board’s obviousness determination with respect to two subsets of dependent claims. First, 

PalTalk argues that substantial evidence does not support 

the Board’s conclusion that the prior art renders obvious

certain dependent claims requiring a group messaging 

“server.” Specifically, dependent claims 4–5, 34–37, and 

41–42 of the ’523 patent require a host computer send a 

message to the group messaging server to “create,” “join,” 

or “leave” a message group. And dependent claims 30, 34, 

35, 49, 53, 54, 66, and 70 of the ’686 patent require that a 

server receives a message to “connect,” “disconnect,” or 

“close” a message group. We disagree with PalTalk. Substantial evidence, including expert testimony and express 

disclosures in the prior art, supports the Board’s conclusion 

that the claimed “server” is disclosed and that the claims 

are rendered obvious. 

Second, PalTalk argues that substantial evidence does 

not support the Board’s conclusion that the prior art renders obvious dependent claim 11 of the ’523 patent and dependent claims 22, 41, and 58 of the ’686 patent. Each of 

these claims recites a limitation requiring that the group 

messaging server perform “echo suppression,” which ensures that a host does not receive copies of the messages it

is sent. PalTalk contends that substantial evidence does 

not support the Board’s conclusion that the prior art discloses the “echo suppression” limitation. We disagree with 

PalTalk. Substantial evidence, including express disclosures in the prior art, supports the Board’s conclusion that 

the claimed “echo suppression” is disclosed and that the 

claims are rendered obvious. We further disagree with 

Case: 19-2035 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 06/16/2020
4 PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC. v. RIOT GAMES, INC.

PalTalk to the extent it additionally argues the Board legally erred by failing to provide sufficient findings to support its obviousness determination for the “echo 

suppression” claims. The Board’s analysis provides a reviewable pathway to its conclusion by reasonably considering the arguments raised by both parties and citing support 

from the prior art. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata 

Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We may 

affirm an agency ruling if we may reasonably discern that 

it followed a proper path, even if that path is less than perfectly clear.”).

Because we conclude that the Board’s obviousness determination is supported by substantial evidence and because we detect no legal error in the Board’s analysis, we 

affirm.

AFFIRMED

Case: 19-2035 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 06/16/2020