United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

COREPHOTONICS, LTD., Appellant

v.

APPLE INC., Appellee ______________________

2022-1340, 2022-1341 ______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020- 00487, IPR2020-00860.

-------------------------------------------------

COREPHOTONICS, LTD., Appellant

v.

APPLE INC., Appellee ______________________

2022-1455, 2022-1456 ______________________ Case: 22-1340 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 10/16/2023

2 COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC.

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020- 00861, IPR2020-00862. ______________________

Decided: October 16, 2023 ______________________

BRIAN DAVID LEDAHL, Russ August & Kabat, Los Ange- les, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by MARC A. FENSTER, NEIL RUBIN, JAMES S. TSUEI.

DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for appellee in 2022-1340. Also repre- sented by ANDREW S. EHMKE; DAVID W. O'BRIEN, HONG SHI, Austin, TX; ANGELA M. OLIVER, Washington, DC. Also ar- gued by ERIN MARIE BOYD LEACH, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Irvine, CA, in 2022-1455. Also represented by MARK S. DAVIES, Washington, DC. ______________________

Before STOLL, LINN, and STARK, Circuit Judges. STARK, Circuit Judge. Corephotonics, Ltd. (“Corephotonics”) appeals final written decisions (“Decisions”) of the Patent Trial and Ap- peal Board (“Board”) concluding that claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,661,233 (“’233 patent”), 10,230,898 (“’898 patent”), 10,326,942 (“’942 patent”), and 10,356,332 (“’332 patent”) (collectively, the “Challenged Patents”) are unpatentable Case: 22-1340 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 10/16/2023

COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. 3

as obvious. The Decisions were each issued in inter partes reviews (“IPR”) initiated by Apple Inc. (“Apple”). 1 Corephotonics principally challenges the Board’s anal- ogous art findings, arguing that the Board made two pro- cedural errors and one substantive error. In terms of procedure, Corephotonics contends that the Board erred (1) by permitting Apple to cure the legally flawed analogous art contention it made in its petition and (2) by making analogous art findings that deviated from the con- tentions Apple advocated for in its petition and reply. As for substance, Corephotonics asserts that prior art refer- ences U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0026366 (“Golan”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,081,206 (“Martin”) are not analogous art. We identify no procedural error in the Board’s handling of whether Golan and Martin are analogous art. We

1 Appeal Nos. 22-1340 and 22-1341 concern the ’233 and ’942 patents, respectively. Appeal Nos. 22-1455 and 22-1456 concern the ’898 and ’332 patents, respectively. We consolidated Appeal Nos. 22-1340 and 22-1341 and sep- arately consolidated Appeal Nos. 22-1455 and 22-1456. Each of the consolidated appeals has its own Joint Appen- dix. For simplicity, when we cite to a reference included in both Joint Appendices, we include the citation only for No. 22-1340/1341. We make clear where we are citing solely to the appendix in No. 22-1455/1456 (which we refer to with the designation “No. 1455”).

There are no material differences between the written descriptions of the ’23