IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir: affirms decision PTAB in challenge to patent on synchronizing data in audio and video content, (Feb 23, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

The PTAB had found that certain claims were unpatentable relating to synchronizing data segments consisting of audio and video visual content.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a nonprecedential decision, affirmed a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that certain claims are unpatentable in a patent related to synchronizing data segments of audio and video content. Appellant, VideoLabs Collective IP, LLC (VideoLabs), challenged the Board’s claim construction, the Board’s allowance of a first-time Reply argument, and the Board’s on-the-merits finding that the claims are unpatentable (VL Collective IP, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-1890 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2026)).

Background. At issue is Patent No. 8,605,794 (’794 patent), which is directed to synchronizing data segments consisting of audio and video visual content. The invention discloses synchronization of “content-related... data segments” “by way of the predefinable assignment rule,” which assigns a first data segment to a second data segment and enables the segments to be output chronologically.

Unified Patents, LLC (Unified) filed a petition for inter partes review arguing that claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12-13, 15, and 20-21 of the ‘794 patent were unpatentable in view of Sonohara, U.S. Patent No. 5,627,656. The Board subsequently instituted inter partes review.

In its Patent Owner Response, VideoLabs advocated for a negative limitation of the term “assignment rule” based on instances in the prosecution history where the applicant distinguished the ‘794 patent from the prior art. VideoLabs proposed that “assignment rule” should be construed as “assignment rule for assigning each one of the content-related data segments to one of the content-related first data segments, where in the assignment is not performed by using the exact timing information for the content-related data segments.” VideoLabs further proposed that the “content-related... data segments” term be construed as “data segments ordered in a file such that they will present the file’s contents in their intended presentation order when rendered sequentially.”

Unified argued in its Petitioner’s Reply that VideoLabs’ construction was incorrect. Unified also argued in the alternative that Sonohara discloses the “syntactical meaning” of the “content-related... data segments” in a composite file.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board declined to construe the term “assignment rule,” but the Board did adopt the definition in the ‘794 specification to construe “content-related... data segments.” The Board mapped Sonohara’s segmented image and sound data to the as-construed “content-related... data segments” and held that Unified had shown that Sonohara anticipated claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12-13, and 15. The Board held that claims 20 and 21 were not shown to be unpatentable, finding that Sonohara’s “assignment rule” was “based on” two different timestamps. VideoLabs appealed.

Standard of review. The appeals court reviewed the Board’s compliance with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act de novo, in particular the Board’s factual determinations for substantial evidence and its legal determinations.

Analysis. The appeals court affirmed PTAB’s Final Written Decision. First, the court affirmed the Board’s construction of “assignment rule.” The court found that although VideoLabs proposed a negative limitation focused on assignment rules using “exact timing information,” the Board indicated that the phrase was “used nowhere in the prosecution history.” The court further held that VideoLabs forfeited its argument that the Board’s construction of “assignment rule” was in error because of its inclusion of “techniques using timestamps.” This argument, the court said, was made for the first time on appeal, and VideoLabs did not raise any exceptional circumstances that would warrant considering its new argument. Second, the court affirmed the Board’s construction of the term “content-related... data segments” as “segments that have a syntactical meaning within the respective data file.”

VideoLabs asserted that the Board erred by considering Unified’s argument, which it raised for the first time in its Reply, that Sonohara discloses the “syntactical meaning” portion of the construction for “content-related... data segments.” However, the court found that the Board’s decision was in accordance with its obligations under the APA.

Further, VideoLabs argued that the Board erred by determining that Sonohara disclosed “content-related... data segments” as construed. The court held that the Board reasonably relied upon testimony from Unified’s expert to support its finding that a skilled artisan would infer “syntactical meaning” in the originating files after reviewing the file production process and header and track information in the composite file.

The Case is No. 24-1890.

Judge: Chen, R.

Attorneys: Christine E. Lehman (Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP) for VL Collective IP, LLC. Debra Janece McComas (Haynes and Boone, LLP) for Unified Patents, LLC.

Companies: VL Collective IP, LLC; Unified Patents, LLC

Cases: Patent FedCirNews