NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

UNILOC 2017 LLC,

Appellant

v.

SLING TV, L.L.C.,

Appellee

______________________

2023-1156

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-

01363.

______________________

Decided: September 4, 2024

______________________

DONALD LEE JACKSON, RIMON P.C., McLean, VA, argued for appellant. Also represented by JAMES ETHERIDGE, 

Etheridge Law Group, Southlake, TX. 

 ELIOT DAMON WILLIAMS, Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by ALI 

DHANANI, Houston, TX; GEORGE HOPKINS GUY, III, Palo 

Alto, CA; KURT M. PANKRATZ, Dallas, TX.

 ______________________

Case: 23-1156 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 09/04/2024
2 UNILOC 2017 LLC v. SLING TV, L.L.C.

Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PROST, Circuit Judge.

Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an 

inter partes review (“IPR”) determining all claims of 

U.S. Patent No. 9,721,273 (“the ’273 patent”) unpatentable. 

We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Sling TV, L.L.C. (“Sling”) petitioned for IPR of all 

claims of the ’273 patent. The ’273 patent relates to aggregating and presenting internet users with data in certain 

formats. Claim 1 is exemplary and recites:

1. A method for providing content via a computer 

network and computing system, the method comprising:

storing presentation data that represents content of 

a first collection of one or more presentations using 

the computer system;

storing data indicative of the first collection of 

presentations so as to be associated with the 

presentation data;

storing feed data that represents a collection of one 

or more feeds using the computer system, wherein 

each of the feeds identifies a corresponding second 

collection of one or more presentations being accessible via the computer network and includes no 

data representing content of the second collection of 

presentations;

automatically and periodically accessing each of 

the feeds to identify each of the corresponding second collection of presentations, using the computer 

system;

Case: 23-1156 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 09/04/2024
UNILOC 2017 LLC v. SLING TV, L.L.C. 3

storing data associated with a third collection of 

one or more presentations; and

aggregating each of the first, identified second, and 

third collections of presentations for delivery via 

the computer network using a common web page.

’273 patent claim 1 (emphasis added). The parties refer to 

the emphasized limitations as the “presentation data” and 

“feed data” limitations, respectively.

The Board initially determined that Sling failed to 

show that the ’273 patent’s claims are unpatentable. Central to this conclusion was its determination that the “feed 

data” limitation excluded metadata.1 Sling appealed, and 

we vacated and remanded after concluding that the Board 

incorrectly construed the “feed data” limitation. Sling TV, 

L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. 21-1651, 2022 WL 306468 

(Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2022). We concluded that the Board’s 

construction “cannot be correct” because it excluded a preferred embodiment of a feed containing metadata. Id. at 

*2–3. We also noted that the “presentation data” and “feed 

data” limitations need not have the same construction. Id.

at *3 n.1.

On remand, the Board concluded that all claims of the 

’273 patent are unpatentable over Li.

2 Sling TV, L.L.C. v. 

Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. IPR2019-01363, 2022 Pat. App. 

LEXIS 4475 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 7, 2022). The Board again resolved a claim construction dispute, this time related to the 

“presentation data” limitation. The Board concluded that 

the intrinsic record supported construing the “presentation 

1 Here, metadata refers to “information about the 

item, such as title, link description, author, and category.” 

Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. 21-1651, 2022 WL 

306468, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2022).

2 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0256443 (“Li”). 

J.A. 968–86.

Case: 23-1156 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 09/04/2024
4 UNILOC 2017 LLC v. SLING TV, L.L.C.

data” limitation to include content graphics, such as Li’s 

thumbnails, and titles. Id. at *14. The Board also noted 

that “[w]hether thumbnails and titles . . . are metadata” 

within the meaning of the “feed data” limitation “is immaterial to whether they are ‘presentation data that represents content.’” Id. at *15.

Uniloc timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

Uniloc’s arguments on appeal focus on claim construction. Uniloc specifically argues that the Board incorrectly 

construed the “presentation data” limitation to permit the 

“data that represents content” to include metadata. Uniloc 

maintains that, under the correct construction, Li does not 

disclose the “presentation data” limitation.

We review the Board’s ultimate claim construction and 

determinations based on intrinsic evidence de novo and 

any subsidiary factual findings for substantial evidence. 

Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 

1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We construe claims by looking 

to the claim language, the specification, the prosecution 

history, and, where relevant, extrinsic evidence. Phillips 

v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en 

banc). 

Sling offers three arguments for affirmance: that (1) we 

foreclosed Uniloc’s claim-construction argument in our previous opinion; (2) the Board’s claim construction is correct; 

and (3) Li meets the “presentation data” limitation even 

under Uniloc’s proposed construction.

We agree with Sling’s second argument—that the 

Board correctly construed the “presentation data” limitation. Specifically, nothing in the claim language, specification, or prosecution history supports construing the phrase 

“presentation data that represents content” to exclude

metadata. In this instance, we decline to import a negative 

Case: 23-1156 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 09/04/2024
UNILOC 2017 LLC v. SLING TV, L.L.C. 5

limitation into the claim that cannot be found in the claim 

language itself. See Linear Tech. Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 

1049, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (declining to add negative limitation to claim where “there is no basis in the patent specification”). Since Uniloc’s arguments depend on its claimconstruction position, we do not reach Sling’s alternative 

arguments regarding our prior opinion and whether Li

meets the “presentation data” limitation even under 

Uniloc’s proposed construction.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Uniloc’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the 

Board’s determination that all claims of the ’273 patent are 

unpatentable is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 23-1156 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 09/04/2024