Court Opinion

ID: 9371092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 16:01:43.092016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:25.323705
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1127    Document: 35    Page: 1   Filed: 02/15/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   KEYNETIK, INC.,
                      Appellant

                            v.

        SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
                    Appellee
             ______________________

                       2022-1127
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-
 00986.
                  ______________________

                Decided: February 15, 2023
                 ______________________

     EDWARD F. BEHM, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, Philadel-
 phia, PA, argued for appellant.     Also represented
 by MARK W. HALDERMAN.

    CHETAN BANSAL, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC,
 argued for appellee. Also represented by STEPHEN BLAKE
 KINNAIRD, NAVEEN MODI, JOSEPH PALYS.
                  ______________________
Case: 22-1127    Document: 35       Page: 2   Filed: 02/15/2023

 2           KEYNETIK, INC.   v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and PROST, Circuit
                          Judges.
 MOORE, Chief Judge.
     KEYnetik, Inc. appeals an inter partes review final
 written decision holding claims 4, 7, 15, and 18 of U.S. Pa-
 tent No. 8,370,106 would have been obvious. For the fol-
 lowing reasons, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     KEYnetik is the assignee of the ’106 patent, which is
 directed to detecting motion, “such as movement and rest”
 and “orientation towards gravity from a rest position.” ’106
 patent, 1:61–67. Motion detection can be implemented in
 hand-held devices, such as mobile phones, so the device’s
 operations (e.g., answering a call) can be executed based on
 a user’s gestures (e.g., the user moving the phone to his
 ear). Id. at 6:56–7:30.
     Samsung Electronics Co. petitioned for inter partes re-
 view of claims 1–20 of the ’106 patent, arguing the claims
 would have been obvious. Relevant here, Samsung as-
 serted claims 4, 7, 15, and 18 would have been obvious in
 view of Linjama, 1 Lehrma, 2 and Tosaki. 3 The Board agreed
 and held all claims unpatentable. KEYnetik appealed, and
 we affirmed as to claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–14, 16–17, and 19–20.
 KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 841 F. App’x 219, 220
 (Fed. Cir. 2021). As to claims 4, 7, 15, and 18, we vacated
 and remanded for the Board to make a finding of reasona-
 ble expectation of success. Id. at 228.
    On remand, the Board found a skilled artisan would
 have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining
 the references. The Board based its finding on the

     1   U.S. Pat. App. No. 2008/0229255.
     2   U.S. Pat. No. 6,703,939.
     3   U.S. Pat. No. 6,312,335.
Case: 22-1127      Document: 35     Page: 3   Filed: 02/15/2023

 KEYNETIK, INC.   v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.          3

 testimony of Samsung’s expert, Dr. Abowd. KEYnetik ap-
 peals.        We     have    jurisdiction  under    28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                           DISCUSSION
      Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying
 factual findings. In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed.
 Cir. 2014) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
 17–18 (1966)). Whether there is a reasonable expectation
 of success is a question of fact. Teva Pharms. USA v. Cor-
 cept Therapeutics, Inc., 18 F.4th 1377, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir.
 2021). We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and
 any underlying findings of fact for substantial evidence. In
 re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Substan-
 tial evidence requires the reviewing court to ask whether a
 reasonable person might find that the evidentiary record
 supports the agency’s conclusion.” In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d
 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
     KEYnetik argues substantial evidence does not sup-
 port the Board’s finding of a reasonable expectation of suc-
 cess because it is based solely on conclusory expert
 testimony. We do not agree.
      Dr. Abowd’s testimony, while brief, was not conclusory.
 Dr. Abowd testified the software modifications needed to
 combine the prior art references would be “straightfor-
 ward” and “simple” for a skilled artisan. J.A. 812 ¶ 154.
 He also described the function those modifications would
 need to achieve, stating the gesture detector would be mod-
 ified “such that the orientation of mobile terminal 10
 [would] only [be] detected when the mobile terminal [was]
 substantially stationary.” Id.
     KEYnetik criticizes this testimony for not identifying
 specific software modifications a skilled artisan would need
 to make, how he would make them, and why he would have
 expected them to be successful. This criticism ignores that
 Dr. Abowd described the specific function the software
Case: 22-1127    Document: 35         Page: 4   Filed: 02/15/2023

 4           KEYNETIK, INC.   v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

 modifications would need to achieve. Normally, once the
 function to be performed by software has been identified,
 writing code to achieve that function is within the skill of
 the art. Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1549
 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Dr. Abowd’s testimony detailing the mod-
 ified function of the code and that implementing such a
 modification would be “simple” and “straightforward” was
 sufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of success.
 KEYnetik has cited no evidence to the contrary. Instead,
 before the Board and on appeal, it offers only attorney ar-
 gument alleging Dr. Abowd’s testimony is inadequate. But
 attorney argument is no substitute for evidence. While Dr.
 Abowd’s testimony is brief, in the absence of any contradic-
 tory evidence, it constitutes substantial evidence to sup-
 port the Board’s finding. We have considered KEYnetik’s
 other arguments and find them unpersuasive.
                        AFFIRMED
                              COSTS
 No costs.