IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Claim construction reversed in vehicle motion measurement dispute, (May 27, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

The PTAB erred in finding a patentee had acted as its own lexicographer because language in the specification was permissive rather than mandatory and lacked clear definitional statement found elsewhere.

A patentee had not acted as its own lexicographer in defining the term “movement vector,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The board should have construed the term in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded the Board’s determination on inter partes review that two patent claims were unpatentable, although the Board’s findings of unpatentability with respect to three other claims were affirmed (ATOS, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 23-1621 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025)).

ATOS, LLC (Atos) was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,846,174 (the ’174 patent), which disclosed methods for using sensors on a portable device such as a cell phone for detecting the movement of a vehicle, such as accidents and acceleration, and for determining the difference between movement of the phone as a result of movement of the vehicle and independent movement, such as by the user handling the phone. Atos brought suit for infringement against Allstate Insurance Company; the trial court granted a motion to dismiss on the theory that the patents were directed to ineligible subject matter; and the issue remained pending a motion for partial final judgment in order to allow an appeal. While the district court case was pending Allstate petitioned for inter partes review on the ground of anticipation and obviousness. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted review and found that claim 5 had been anticipated and that Allstate had failed to show claims 1 through 4 were unpatentable. Atos appealed the PTAB decision as to claim 5, while Allstate cross-appealed as to claims 1 through 4.

Anticipation of Claim 5. Atos argued that the board erred in the construction of two terms, “operation indicator” and “vehicle independent states.” Atos believed that board’s construction of “operation indicator” read out the requirement that a sensor’s signal from the environment be converted into a measurement, but the court found that this was accounted for in the board’s construction. “Vehicle independent states” as Atos understood it would require that the phone remain in the vehicle while the claimed steps were undertaken, but the court found that the board’s broader construction, which allowed the phone to be outside the vehicle as well, was supported by patent language encompassing scenarios where the phone fell to the ground. The court found no error in the board’s claim constructions and therefore the anticipation ruling which depended upon them.

Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2. On cross-appeal, Allstate argued that the board erred in its determination that Allstate had failed to show the “rotation vector” claim was obvious by deviating from its original construction of the term “rotation vector” when it determined that an “angular momentum vector” described in a prior art reference was not a “rotation vector.” The court found that substantial evidence in the form of expert testimony supported the finding that an “angular momentum vector” was not a “rotation vector” because angular momentum, unlike a rotation vector, could not be used to detect a vehicle turning. The court found no error in the board’s claim construction.

Obviousness of Claims 3 and 4. As to claims 3 and 4, Allstate argued that the board erred in finding that Atos had acted as its own lexicographer in defining the term “movement vector.” The court found that Atos had used the term “movement vector” in permissive, not mandatory, language when it wrote in the specification that “[t]he movement vector can be derived from the cross product between the centrifugal force and rotation vector” and that in every other instance of Atos defining a term it had done so clearly and unambiguously with a definitional statement. Accordingly, the court remanded the case with instructions to construe “movement vector” with its ordinary and customary meaning.

The court affirmed the decision of the board as to claims 1, 2, and 5 and reversed it as to claims 3 and 4.

The case is Nos. 2023-1621, 2023-1849.

Judge: Reyna, J.

Attorneys: Reginald J. Hill (Jenner & Block LLP) for ATOS, LLC. Nathaniel C. Love (Sidley Austin LLP) for Allstate Insurance Co.

Companies: ATOS, LLC; Allstate Insurance Co.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews