PTAB

IPR2026-00191

ResMed Corp v. Fractus SA

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Antennas, Wireless Devices and Methods of Manufacturing Antennas
  • Brief Description: The ’677 patent relates to antennas for wireless devices, such as mobile phones. The invention purports to provide optimized antenna performance by defining antenna geometry using specific "complexity factors" (F21 and F32) that must fall within claimed numerical ranges.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-9 are obvious over Dou in view of Ciais-Quadband.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dou (Application # 2007/0200773) and Ciais-Quadband (a 2004 IEEE article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Dou disclosed a wireless handheld device with a multi-antenna architecture but explicitly left the choice of specific "suitable internal antenna" to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). Ciais-Quadband disclosed a miniature quadband planar inverted-F antenna (PIFA) designed for internal use in mobile handsets, making it a suitable choice for implementation in Dou's device. Petitioner asserted that the combination of Dou's device architecture with Ciais-Quadband's antenna as the "first" and "second" antennas met all limitations of claims 1-9. This included the specific "complexity factor" limitations of claim 1, for which Petitioner's expert calculated values of F21 = 1.31 (meeting "at least 1.20") and F32 = 1.57 (meeting "less than 1.75") for the Ciais-Quadband antenna.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Dou and Ciais-Quadband to provide a complete, functional multi-antenna system in a mobile device. Dou provided the general framework and need for suitable antennas, while Ciais-Quadband provided an antenna specifically designed for that exact application (internal use in mobile phones) and operating in well-known communication bands (GSM, DCS, PCS, UMTS).
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved implementing a known type of antenna (PIFA), designed for mobile devices, into a mobile device architecture that expressly contemplated its use.

Ground 2: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Dou in view of Ciais-Quadband and Nakano.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dou (Application # 2007/0200773), Ciais-Quadband (a 2004 IEEE article), and Nakano (a 2005 IEEE article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1, adding Nakano to provide a specific WLAN antenna. Petitioner argued that a POSITA would implement Dou's device with two Ciais-Quadband antennas and supplement it with Nakano’s dual-band (2.45 GHz and 5.2 GHz) WLAN antenna to provide the broader connectivity described by Dou. This combination allegedly met all limitations of claims 1-20, with Nakano's antenna serving as the "second antenna" or "third antenna" recited in various claims. Petitioner's expert calculated complexity factors for the Nakano antenna (F21 = 1.49, F32 = 1.46) that also satisfied the claim limitations.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Nakano's antenna into the Dou and Ciais-Quadband framework to meet market demand for expanded wireless capabilities, specifically adding 5.2 GHz band functionality not covered by Dou’s suggested WiFi/Bluetooth antenna.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because Nakano's antenna was also designed for internal use in mobile handsets, and combining multiple antennas for different frequency bands was a conventional practice in wireless device design.

Ground 3: Claims 1-5 and 12-20 are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by Baliarda-543.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baliarda-543 (Application # 2008/0018543).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner first argued that claims 1-5 and 12-20 were not entitled to a priority date before April 7, 2014. This was because the original 2006 priority application lacked written description for the full scope of a "4G communication standard," as key standards like LTE and their frequency bands were not defined at that time. This priority date shift rendered Baliarda-543—a 2008 publication of a parent application to the ’677 patent—as valid prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102. Because Baliarda-543 shared a materially identical specification with the ’677 patent, Petitioner contended it inherently disclosed and anticipated all limitations of claims 1-5 and 12-20.
    • Key Aspects: This ground's viability hinged on invalidating the claimed priority date for a subset of the challenged claims, thereby transforming a parent application publication into anticipating prior art.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "complexity factor," "F21," "F32": Petitioner argued these terms have no ordinary meaning and must be construed according to their explicit definition in the ’677 patent's specification. The patent defined them as the numerical result of a specific, multi-step mathematical calculation involving overlaying three specially constructed grids (G1, G2, G3) on an antenna's contour. This construction was central to proving that the prior art antennas met the claimed numerical ranges.
  • "4G communication standard": Petitioner contended that, based on the patent's intrinsic evidence and the Patent Owner's own litigation positions in parallel district court cases, this term encompassed standards such as HSDPA, WiFi, and LTE. This broad interpretation was critical for showing the prior art met the "4G" limitations and for the priority date challenge in Ground 3.
  • "perimeter": Citing a court construction from related litigation (the "ADT Litigation"), Petitioner proposed that "perimeter" should be construed as the "boundary of an object," which was essential for properly defining the "antenna contour" used to calculate the complexity factors.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that this petition was a "copycat" of a petition filed in Geotab Inc. v. Fractus, S.A. (IPR2025-01026), which the Board had already instituted. Because the Board had previously determined that the same grounds presented a reasonable likelihood of success, Petitioner contended that discretionary denial would be inappropriate and that institution would serve the interests of justice and judicial efficiency.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 11,031,677 as unpatentable.