Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Sling Tv, L.l.c.

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
UNILOC 2017 LLC,
Appellant
v.
SLING TV, L.L.C.,
Appellee
______________________
2023-1156
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-
01363.
______________________
Decided: September 4, 2024
______________________
DONALD LEE JACKSON, RIMON P.C., McLean, VA, ar-
gued for appellant. Also represented by JAMES ETHERIDGE,
Etheridge Law Group, Southlake, TX.
ELIOT DAMON WILLIAMS, Baker Botts LLP, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by ALI
DHANANI, Houston, TX; GEORGE HOPKINS GUY, III, Palo
Alto, CA; KURT M. PANKRATZ, Dallas, TX.
______________________
Case: 23-1156 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 09/04/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

UNILOC 2017 LLC v. SLING TV, L.L.C. 2
Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PROST, Circuit Judge.
Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”) appeals a final written de-
cision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an
inter partes review (“IPR”) determining all claims of
U.S. Patent No. 9,721,273 (“the ’273 patent”) unpatentable.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Sling TV, L.L.C. (“Sling”) petitioned for IPR of all
claims of the ’273 patent. The ’273 patent relates to aggre-
gating and presenting internet users with data in certain
formats. Claim 1 is exemplary and recites:
1. A method for providing content via a computer
network and computing system, the method com-
prising:
storing presentation data that represents content of
a first collection of one or more presentations using
the computer system;
storing data indicative of the first collection of
presentations so as to be associated with the
presentation data;
storing feed data that represents a collection of one
or more feeds using the computer system, wherein
each of the feeds identifies a corresponding second
collection of one or more presentations being acces-
sible via the computer network and includes no
data representing content of the second collection of
presentations;
automatically and periodically accessing each of
the feeds to identify each of the corresponding sec-
ond collection of presentations, using the computer
system;
Case: 23-1156 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 09/04/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

UNILOC 2017 LLC v. SLING TV, L.L.C. 3
storing data associated with a third collection of
one or more presentations; and
aggregating each of the first, identified second, and
third collections of presentations for delivery via
the computer network using a common web page.
’273 patent claim 1 (emphasis added). The parties refer to
the emphasized limitations as the “presentation data” and
“feed data” limitations, respectively.
The Board initially determined that Sling failed to
show that the ’273 patent’s claims are unpatentable. Cen-
tral to this conclusion was its determination that the “feed
data” limitation excluded metadata.1 Sling appealed, and
we vacated and remanded after concluding that the Board
incorrectly construed the “feed data” limitation. Sling TV,
L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. 21-1651, 2022 WL 306468
(Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2022). We concluded that the Board’s
construction “cannot be correct” because it excluded a pre-
ferred embodiment of a feed containing metadata. Id. at
*2–3. We also noted that the “presentation data” and “feed
data” limitations need not have the same construction. Id.
at *3 n.1.
On remand, the Board concluded that all claims of the
’273 patent are unpatentable over Li.2 Sling TV, L.L.C. v.
Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. IPR2019-01363, 2022 Pat. App.
LEXIS 4475 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 7, 2022). The Board again re-
solved a claim construction dispute, this time related to the
“presentation data” limitation. The Board concluded that
the intrinsic record supported construing the “presentation
1 Here, metadata refers to “information about the
item, such as title, link description, author, and category.”
Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. 21-1651, 2022 WL
306468, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2022).
2 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0256443 (“Li”).
J.A. 968–86.
Case: 23-1156 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 09/04/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

UNILOC 2017 LLC v. SLING TV, L.L.C. 4
data” limitation to include content graphics, such as Li’s
thumbnails, and titles. Id. at *14. The Board also noted
that “[w]hether thumbnails and titles . . . are metadata”
within the meaning of the “feed data” limitation “is imma-
terial to whether they are ‘presentation data that repre-
sents content.’” Id. at *15.
Uniloc timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
DISCUSSION
Uniloc’s arguments on appeal focus on claim construc-
tion. Uniloc specifically argues that the Board incorrectly
construed the “presentation data” limitation to permit the
“data that represents content” to include metadata. Uniloc
maintains that, under the correct construction, Li does not
disclose the “presentation data” limitation.
We review the Board’s ultimate claim construction and
determinations based on intrinsic evidence de novo and
any subsidiary factual findings for substantial evidence.
Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d
1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We construe claims by looking
to the claim language, the specification, the prosecution
history, and, where relevant, extrinsic evidence. Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
banc).
Sling offers three arguments for affirmance: that (1) we
foreclosed Uniloc’s claim-construction argument in our pre-
vious opinion; (2) the Board’s claim construction is correct;
and (3) Li meets the “presentation data” limitation even
under Uniloc’s proposed construction.
We agree with Sling’s second argument—that the
Board correctly construed the “presentation data” limita-
tion. Specifically, nothing in the claim language, specifica-
tion, or prosecution history supports construing the phrase
“presentation data that represents content” to exclude
metadata. In this instance, we decline to import a negative
Case: 23-1156 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 09/04/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

UNILOC 2017 LLC v. SLING TV, L.L.C. 5
limitation into the claim that cannot be found in the claim
language itself. See Linear Tech. Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d
1049, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (declining to add negative lim-
itation to claim where “there is no basis in the patent spec-
ification”). Since Uniloc’s arguments depend on its claim-
construction position, we do not reach Sling’s alternative
arguments regarding our prior opinion and whether Li
meets the “presentation data” limitation even under
Uniloc’s proposed construction.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Uniloc’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the
Board’s determination that all claims of the ’273 patent are
unpatentable is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
Case: 23-1156 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 09/04/2024

-- 5 of 5 --