Court Opinion

ID: 9959262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 15:01:14.980622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:44.583767
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2156   Document: 58     Page: 1   Filed: 04/11/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

    GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD., DBA GWEE,
                  Appellant

                            v.

  SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
       ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
                   Appellees
            ______________________

       2022-2156, 2022-2157, 2022-2158, 2022-2159
                ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-
 00335, IPR2021-00336, IPR2021-00337, IPR2021-00338.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: April 11, 2024
                 ______________________

     JOHN J. EDMONDS, Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC, Hou-
 ston, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by
 STEPHEN F. SCHLATHER; ALISTAIR B. DAWSON, PARTH GEJJI,
 Beck Redden LLP, Houston, TX.

     ALI REZA SHARIFAHMADIAN, Arnold & Porter Kaye
 Scholer LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellees. Also
 represented by JIN-SUK PARK.
                  ______________________
Case: 22-2156     Document: 58     Page: 2    Filed: 04/11/2024

 2                               GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.
                               SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

     Before PROST, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
 PROST, Circuit Judge.
      Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electron-
 ics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) petitioned for in-
 ter partes review (“IPR”) of all claims of U.S. Patent
 Nos. 10,259,020 (“the ’020 patent”), 10,259,021 (“the ’021
 patent”), 10,562,077 (“the ’077 patent”), and 10,589,320
 (“the ’320 patent”). In four final written decisions, the Pa-
 tent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined that all
 claims were unpatentable over the asserted prior art.
 Samsung Elecs. Co. v. GUI Glob. Prods., Ltd., No. IPR2021-
 00335, 2022 Pat. App. LEXIS 3359 (P.T.A.B. June 29,
 2022) (“’335 Decision”); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. GUI Glob.
 Prods., Ltd., No. IPR2021-00336, 2022 WL 2252459
 (P.T.A.B. June 22, 2022) (“’336 Decision”); Samsung Elecs.
 Co. v. GUI Glob. Prods., Ltd., No. IPR2021-00337, 2022 WL
 2252561 (P.T.A.B. June 22, 2022) (“’337 Decision”); Sam-
 sung Elecs. Co. v. GUI Glob. Prods., Ltd., No. IPR2021-
 00338, 2022 WL 2252461 (P.T.A.B. June 22, 2022) (“’338
 Decision”). GUI Global Products, Ltd. d/b/a Gwee (“Gwee”)
 appeals each final written decision. We affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
                               I
     The ’020, ’021, ’077, and ’320 patents share a specifica-
 tion. 1 These patents disclose, among other things, a “func-
 tionality of being able to activ[ate] magnetic switches on
 devices having such switches.” ’020 patent col. 11 ll. 54–56.
 One embodiment “is a switching device for use [with] a
 portable electronic device having a view screen, a switch
 for turning the portable device off and on that can be

     1    For convenience, we cite only the ’020 patent spec-
 ification.
Case: 22-2156      Document: 58       Page: 3    Filed: 04/11/2024

 GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.                                  3
 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

 activated or deactivated by the application of a magnetic
 field and at least one case.” Id. at col. 17 ll. 45–49. Exam-
 ples of the portable electronic device include “tablet com-
 puters, laptop computers, portable DVD players, and the
 like.” Id. at col. 17 ll. 51–52. Figure 24 provides an illus-
 tration of one such portable electronic device (tablet com-
 puter 2400) with a switching device (2401):

 Id. at Fig. 24; see also id. at col. 17 ll. 63–67.
     Claim 1 of the ’020 patent is independent and recites:
     1. A system comprising:
     a portable switching device coupled to a portable
     electronic device;
     wherein:
         the switching device and the electronic de-
         vice are configured to selectively couple to
         each other employing magnetic force from
         a first magnet disposed within the switch-
         ing device;
Case: 22-2156    Document: 58      Page: 4   Filed: 04/11/2024

 4                              GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.
                              SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

         the switching device comprises a first case;
         the electronic device comprises a second
         case and an electronic circuit that is re-
         sponsive to the switching device;
         the electronic device comprises at least one
         element selected from the group consisting
         of beveled edges, ridges, recessed areas,
         grooves, slots, indented shapes, bumps,
         raised shapes, and combinations thereof;
         configured to correspond to compl[e]men-
         tary surface elements on the switching de-
         vice;
         the portable switching device is configured
         to activate, deactivate, or send into hiber-
         nation the portable electronic device; and
         when coupled, the second case functions to
         protect the first case.
 Id. at claim 1 (emphasis added). Claim 1 of the ’077 and
 ’320 patents also recites an additional limitation that “the
 electronic device plays . . . a remote device.” ’077 patent
 claim 1; ’320 patent claim 1. Claim 1 of each of the four
 patents does not otherwise have relevant differences for
 the purposes of these appeals. All patents also have de-
 pendent claims that recite the switching device or the elec-
 tronic device being “wireless earplugs.” ’020 patent claim
 10; ’021 patent claim 10; ’077 patent claim 11; ’320 patent
 claim 11.
                              II
     In each IPR, Samsung presented obviousness grounds
 based on Kim. 2 Samsung relied on what it referred to as
 “Figure A,” a schematic representation of Kim’s combined

     2   U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0227642 (“Kim”).
Case: 22-2156    Document: 58     Page: 5    Filed: 04/11/2024

 GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.                              5
 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

 teachings that Samsung drew, as the primary basis for ob-
 viousness. The Board found that Kim teaches “Figure A”
 and also that “Figure A” would have been an obvious vari-
 ation of Kim’s disclosures. ’335 Decision, 2022 Pat. App.
 LEXIS 3359, at *11–26. 3 For the claims with the “wireless
 earplug” limitation, Samsung relied on a combination of
 Kim and Koh. 4 The Board found that a skilled artisan
 would have been motivated to combine Kim and Koh. Id.
 at *42–47. For the “switching device” limitation, the Board
 found that Kim teaches one device switching, or causing a
 change in the operation of, another device. Id. at *27–28.
 The Board also found that Kim teaches the “plays . . . a re-
 mote device” limitation in claim 1 of the ’077 and ’320 pa-
 tents. ’337 Decision, 2022 WL 2252561, at *18; ’338
 Decision, 2022 WL 2252461, at *19.
    Gwee timely appealed each final written decision. We
 have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                        DISCUSSION
     On appeal, Gwee argues that the Board lacked sub-
 stantial evidence for certain findings underlying its obvi-
 ousness conclusions and committed several Administrative
 Procedure Act (“APA”) violations. We take up Gwee’s obvi-
 ousness arguments and then address its APA arguments.
                              I
     What the prior art discloses and whether a person of
 ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to com-
 bine prior-art references are both factual questions that we
 review for substantial evidence. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP
 Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2023). “Sub-
 stantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable

    3    Unless the Board’s treatment of the issues differs,
 for simplicity we cite only the ’335 Decision.
      4  Korean Patent Pub. No. 10-2008-0093178 (“Koh”).
Case: 22-2156    Document: 58      Page: 6    Filed: 04/11/2024

 6                              GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.
                              SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

 mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
 Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1324
 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).
     In order, we review Gwee’s arguments that: (1) Kim
 does not disclose or render obvious Figure A; (2) a skilled
 artisan would not have combined Kim and Koh; (3) Kim
 does not disclose the “switching device” limitation; and
 (4) Kim does not disclose the “plays . . . a remote device”
 limitation.
                              A
     Gwee first argues that substantial evidence does not
 support the Board’s alternative findings that Kim discloses
 Samsung’s “Figure A” and that “Figure A” would have been
 an obvious variation of Kim’s disclosures.
     Kim discloses various watch-type embodiments. In one
 such embodiment, 100a depicts a first body and 100b de-
 picts a second body connected to the first body by hinge
 100d. The hinge can be configured so that the first body
 and second body can close. Kim also discloses connecting,
 or coupling, a third body to the first or second bodies. Kim
 discloses “[a] method of coupling the third body” 300 “to one
 of the first and second bodies,” J.A. 2966 ¶ 260, and de-
 scribes coupling third body 300 “on at least one side of the
 second body of the main device” using coupling member
 510, J.A. 2967 ¶ 261. This coupling can be accomplished
 using magnets.
Case: 22-2156    Document: 58     Page: 7    Filed: 04/11/2024

 GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.                              7
 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

      Citing these disclosures, Samsung’s petition stated
 that a skilled artisan “would have understood Kim to dis-
 close an embodiment of the mobile terminal in which a
 watch-type main device comprises a first body 100a con-
 nected to a second body 100b by a hinge 100d so that the
 first and second bodies can be opened or closed in a folding
 manner, and wherein the mobile terminal further com-
 prises a sub-device 300 detachably coupled to the second
 body 100b.” J.A. 412–13 (emphasis omitted). Samsung
 drew a schematic representation of this disclosure, which
 it called “Figure A”:

 J.A. 413. The Board found that Kim teaches the features
 illustrated in “Figure A” as compiled based on Kim’s teach-
 ings described above. ’335 Decision, 2022 Pat. App. LEXIS
 3359, at *11–15.
     Kim’s express statements provide substantial evidence
 supporting the Board’s finding, and Gwee’s arguments to
 the contrary are unpersuasive. Gwee first argues that the
 Board incorrectly found that Kim’s sub-device 300 could
 couple to the inside face of second body 100b because Kim
Case: 22-2156    Document: 58     Page: 8    Filed: 04/11/2024

 8                              GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.
                              SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

 describes the sub-device as coupled in an “overlapping”
 manner. To Gwee, “‘overlapping’ means being placed on
 top, not below.” Reply Br. 7 (emphasis in original). Kim,
 however, discloses that the sub-device couples to “at least
 one side of the second body of the main device,” which
 teaches that the sub-device can couple to both the inside
 and outside faces of the second body. J.A. 2967 ¶ 261 (em-
 phasis added). Gwee also argues that coupling the sub-de-
 vice to the inside face of the second body would result in a
 physically impossible configuration. But Kim teaches ex-
 actly this configuration, and Gwee has not otherwise
 shown that this configuration was beyond a skilled arti-
 san’s capability.
      Samsung’s petition also presented an alternative the-
 ory that “Figure A” would have been an obvious variation
 of Kim’s teachings. Samsung referenced Kim’s folder-type
 embodiment, which discloses coupling a sub-device to an-
 other device using magnets. The petition stated that a
 skilled artisan “would have recognized that because of the
 similarities between Kim’s folder-type and watch-type em-
 bodiments, Kim’s disclosure with respect to” its folder-type
 embodiment “could have been adapted and applied to de-
 tachably couple sub-device 300 to the second body 100b of
 the watch-type embodiment in the manner shown in Fig-
 ure A.” J.A. 415 (emphasis omitted). Samsung also noted
 that Kim states that its “[e]mbodiments may be used singly
 and/or by being combined together.” J.A. 2961 ¶ 179. Re-
 lying on this evidence, the Board found that, in addition to
 its finding that Kim expressly teaches “Figure A,” a skilled
 artisan would have modified Kim to arrive at “Figure A.”
 ’335 Decision, 2022 Pat. App. LEXIS 3359, at *15–26.
     Kim’s express statements again provide substantial ev-
 idence supporting the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan
 would have combined the watch-type and folder-type em-
 bodiments. Gwee presents two arguments against this
 finding. It first argues that Kim’s teaching that “[e]mbodi-
 ments may be used singly and/or by being combined
Case: 22-2156    Document: 58     Page: 9    Filed: 04/11/2024

 GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.                              9
 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

 together” relates only to Kim’s “[e]mbodiments for a control
 method” described in the same paragraph. J.A. 2961
 ¶ 179. Gwee’s argument misapprehends the obviousness
 inquiry, which is not limited to the express disclosures of
 the prior art but instead involves what “a person of ordi-
 nary creativity, not an automaton,” would understand from
 the prior art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
 421 (2007). The Board did not err when it found that a
 skilled artisan employing ordinary creativity would have
 applied Kim’s instructions to combine its watch-type and
 folder-type embodiments. Gwee also argues that the
 Board’s finding was based on what a skilled artisan could,
 not would, have done. Gwee relies on the Board’s observa-
 tion that a skilled artisan would have recognized that
 “Kim’s disclosure with respect to Figure 11B could have
 been adapted and applied to detachably couple sub-device
 300 to the second body 100b of the watch-type embodiment
 in the manner shown in Figure A.” ’335 Decision, 2022 Pat.
 App. LEXIS 3359, at *15–16 (emphasis added). But Gwee
 overlooks the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan “would
 have recognized the feasibility and desirability of modify-
 ing” Kim’s watch-type embodiment using the techniques
 for the folder-type embodiment. Id. at *16 (emphasis
 added).
     We thus affirm the Board’s findings that Kim discloses
 “Figure A” and that “Figure A” would have been an obvious
 variation of Kim’s disclosures.
                              B
    Gwee next argues that substantial evidence does not
 support the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would
 have been motivated to combine Kim and Koh.
     Kim discloses that its sub-device can be an “ear phone,”
 J.A. 2962 ¶ 194, but, as Samsung acknowledged, Kim “does
 not include a discussion of example techniques for coupling
 wireless earphone/headset sub-devices with a watch-type
 device,” J.A. 448. Samsung relied on Koh to close this gap.
Case: 22-2156    Document: 58     Page: 10    Filed: 04/11/2024

 10                             GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.
                              SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

 Koh discloses that “a wireless headset [100] is coupled to
 an electronic device storage unit” in a watch-type device
 using magnets. J.A. 2983 ¶¶ 45–48. Samsung proposed
 coupling Koh’s wireless earphones to Kim’s second body
 100b using magnets. The Board found, based on these dis-
 closures, that a skilled artisan would have combined Kim
 and Koh in the manner Samsung proposed. ’335 Decision,
 2022 Pat. App. LEXIS 3359, at *42–47.
     Substantial evidence supports this motivation-to-com-
 bine finding. Kim teaches connecting earphones to a device
 that can be, for example, a watch-type device, and Koh sug-
 gests connecting earphones to a watch-type device using
 magnets (a connection method Kim also teaches). The
 Kim-Koh combination is the simple application of a known
 technique to address a known problem using prior-art ele-
 ments according to their established functions, and nothing
 indicates that the application of these teachings was be-
 yond a skilled artisan’s capability. See Intel Corp. v. Qual-
 comm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
     Gwee presents several arguments against this finding.
 We reject Gwee’s first argument that the combination of a
 watch-type embodiment and earphones involves “mental
 gymnastics.” Appellant’s Br. 53. Kim suggests adding ear-
 phones to a device and teaches that the device has a watch-
 type embodiment, and Koh discloses magnetically coupling
 earphones to a watch-type embodiment. Gwee also argues
 that Samsung’s “arrangement would sacrifice modularity,
 defeat the look-through functionality of the TOLED screen
 depicted in Kim’s Figure 15A device, and eliminate the de-
 sired dual-display capability of the watch-type device advo-
 cated by Kim.” Id. at 56. Kim provides, however, that
 these features are optional. Gwee further points to a pur-
 portedly better combination a skilled artisan would make,
 arguing that Samsung’s inferior Kim-Koh combination
 thus would not have been obvious. But it does not matter
 that there might be a better possible combination; a combi-
 nation only needs to be a “suitable option.” Intel, 21 F.4th
Case: 22-2156    Document: 58     Page: 11    Filed: 04/11/2024

 GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.                              11
 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

 at 800 (emphasis in original) (cleaned up). Gwee finally
 argues that Samsung’s combination would remove certain
 features from Koh, but like its argument regarding lost fea-
 tures in Kim, nothing suggests that these features are key
 to or necessary in Koh.
    We thus conclude substantial evidence supports the
 Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would have combined
 Kim and Koh.
                              C
     Gwee further argues that substantial evidence does not
 support the Board’s finding that Kim discloses the “switch-
 ing device” limitation.
     Kim states that “when the sub-device 300 is coupled to
 the main device 100, the main device 100 may automati-
 cally change its operation mode or an operation mode of the
 sub-device.” J.A. 2962 ¶ 195. The Board, relying on this
 disclosure, found that Kim teaches a switching device
 (main device 100) effecting a switching function (change in
 operation mode) of a different electronic device (sub-device
 300), and vice versa. ’335 Decision, 2022 Pat. App. LEXIS
 3359, at *27–28. Gwee argues that the Board’s finding is
 unsupported by substantial evidence, but Kim’s disclosures
 teach this limitation. Gwee also asserts that the Board
 rendered an incorrect implicit construction of “switching
 device.” Although unclear, it appears that Gwee argues
 that the “switching device” must effect a switching function
 on an “electronic device” that is a different device from the
 “switching device.” Appellant’s Br. 39–42. The Board’s
 findings still meet the “switching device” limitation under
 Gwee’s construction, so we need not resolve this dispute.
     We thus affirm the Board’s finding that Kim teaches
 the “switching device” limitation.
Case: 22-2156    Document: 58      Page: 12   Filed: 04/11/2024

 12                             GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.
                              SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

                              D
      Gwee finally argues that substantial evidence does not
 support the Board’s finding that Kim teaches the “plays . . .
 a remote device” limitation. Kim discloses that “[t]he user
 may enjoy music files (e.g., MP3 files or the like) stored in
 the personal computer by using the sub-device 300,” and
 that the sub-device can control another device. J.A. 2970
 ¶ 344. The Board found that a skilled artisan would have
 combined this embodiment, which discloses playing a re-
 mote device, with Kim’s watch-type embodiment used in
 “Figure A,” based on Kim’s direct teaching that its embod-
 iments may be used singly and/or by being combined to-
 gether. ’337 Decision, 2022 WL 2252561, at *18; ’338
 Decision, 2022 WL 2252461, at *19. Kim’s disclosure that
 its sub-device can play music on another device is substan-
 tial evidence supporting this finding.
     We thus affirm the Board’s finding that Kim teaches
 the “plays . . . a remote device” limitation.
                              II

      We next turn to Gwee’s APA arguments. We address,
 in order, Gwee’s arguments that the Board violated the
 APA by: (1) allowing Samsung to reengineer its “Figure A”
 in reply; (2) inadequately explaining its finding that a
 skilled artisan would have combined Kim and Koh;
 (3) adopting new theories to meet the “switching device”
 limitation; and (4) rendering inconsistent decisions for the
 “plays . . . a remote device” limitation.
                              A
      Gwee first argues that the Board violated the APA by
 allowing Samsung to reengineer its “Figure A” device in its
 reply before the Board. Gwee contends that Samsung reen-
 gineered “Figure A” in reply when Samsung stated that
 “[t]here is nothing in Kim that would suggest to a [skilled
 artisan], much less require, that the folding watch-type
 embodiment of Figure A must have a hinge exactly as
Case: 22-2156   Document: 58     Page: 13    Filed: 04/11/2024

 GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.                            13
 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

 depicted” in Kim’s watch-type embodiment. J.A. 4798
 (cleaned up). We disagree with Gwee that Samsung reen-
 gineered its “Figure A” device in reply. Rather, Samsung
 made a responsive argument in support of the same obvi-
 ousness theory in its petition—that a skilled artisan would
 have combined the teachings of Kim’s watch-type and
 folder-type embodiments. The Board did not violate the
 APA by considering Samsung’s responsive argument. See
 Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 705–06
 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
                             B
     Gwee next argues that the Board violated the APA by
 inadequately explaining its reasoning in finding that a
 skilled artisan would have combined Kim and Koh. We dis-
 agree. The Board, after recounting Samsung’s arguments,
 explained why Gwee’s arguments were unavailing. ’335
 Decision, 2022 Pat. App. LEXIS 3359, at *42–47. The
 Board gave a reasoned explanation for its finding, and
 Gwee’s contention otherwise has no merit.
                             C
     Gwee further argues that the Board substituted its
 own theories for Samsung’s to meet the “switching device”
 limitation. We disagree. In the IPR petitions for the ’021,
 ’077, and ’320 patents, Samsung argued that Kim’s main
 device 100 switches Kim’s sub-device 300. J.A. 501–02,
 587–88, 671–72. The Board relied on the same theory. ’336
 Decision, 2022 WL 2252459, at *13 n.15; ’337 Decision,
 2022 WL 2252561, at *12 n.14; ’338 Decision, 2022 WL
 2252461, at *13 n.12. In the IPR petition for the ’020 pa-
 tent, Samsung argued that Kim’s sub-device 300 switches
 Kim’s main device 100. J.A. 418–19. The Board relied on
 the same theory. ’335 Decision, 2022 Pat. App. LEXIS
 3359, at *28 n.13. Gwee’s contrary arguments are, again,
 meritless.
Case: 22-2156    Document: 58     Page: 14   Filed: 04/11/2024

 14                             GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v.
                              SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

                              D
       Gwee finally argues that the Board violated the APA
 by rendering inconsistent decisions regarding the “plays
 . . . a remote device” limitation. We disagree. In both the
 ’337 Decision and the ’338 Decision, the Board relied on the
 same evidence to find that Kim taught this limitation in
 claim 1 of the ’077 and ’320 patents—the evidence we dis-
 cussed above. ’337 Decision, 2022 WL 2252561, at *18; ’338
 Decision, 2022 WL 2252461, at *19. Gwee focuses on minor
 differences in the language the Board used to argue that
 the Board’s reasoning was inconsistent, but these minor
 differences do not matter. The Board cited the same evi-
 dence to make the same finding, and we decline Gwee’s in-
 vitation to undo adequately explained, evidence-supported
 findings over inconsequential differences in word choice.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Gwee’s remaining arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
 firm.
                        AFFIRMED