Billjco, LLC v. Apple Inc.

N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BILLJCO, LLC,
Appellant
v.
APPLE INC.,
Appellee
______________________
2023-2348
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-
00426.
______________________
Decided: March 14, 2025
______________________
J OSEPH KUO, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Chi-
cago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by B RIAN
MICHALEK, E LIZABETH A. THOMPSON; B RIAN LANDRY, Bos-
ton, MA; C OURTLAND C OLLINSON MERRILL, Minneapolis,
MN.
J AMES LAWRENCE DAVIS, JR ., Ropes & Gray LLP, East
Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by
J AMES R ICHARD BATCHELDER , CHRISTOPHER M. B ONNY;
Case: 23-2348 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 03/14/2025

-- 1 of 8 --

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 2
DOUGLAS HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER , Washington, DC; B RIAN
L EBOW , CASSANDRA B. R OTH , New York, NY.
______________________
Before L OURIE , REYNA , and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
R EYNA , Circuit Judge
BillJCo, LLC appeals from the final written decision of
the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board that claims 1 and
10–12 of the ’804 patent are unpatentable as obvious. We
affirm.
B ACKGROUND
BillJCo, LLC (“BillJCo”) owns U.S. Patent No.
8,761,804 (the “’804 patent”), which relates to providing
peer-to-peer location-based services for mobile data pro-
cessing systems. ’804 patent, Abstract. The patent ex-
plains that prior art systems typically exchanged data via
a centralized server, leading to slower data processing
speeds, high infrastructure costs, and privacy concerns,
particularly when transmitting a user’s location data. Id.
at 1:66–2:26, 2:43–58. The ’804 patent addresses these is-
sues by providing a computer architecture that allows mo-
bile systems to exchange location-based data without
requiring a centralized server. Id. at 3:53–4:23.
Claims 1 and 10–12 (the “challenged claims”) of the
’804 patent are at issue on appeal. Claim 1, which is rep-
resentative and dispositive of the remaining claims, recites
in relevant part:
1. A method by a sending data processing
system [] comprising: . . . transmitting, by
the sending data processing system, the
broadcast unidirectional wireless
data record for receipt by a plurality
of receiving mobile data processing
systems in a wireless vicinity of the
sending data processing system
Case: 23-2348 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 03/14/2025

-- 2 of 8 --

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 3
wherein the broadcast unidirectional
wireless data record is beaconed by the
sending data processing system in accord-
ance with the configuration for when to
perform beaconing[.]
’804 patent, Cl. 1 (118:24–31) (emphasis added).
Apple Inc. (“Apple”) petitioned for inter partes review
(“IPR”) of the challenged claims. The Board granted insti-
tution and issued a final written decision in Apple’s favor.
See Apple Inc. v. BillJCo LLC, No. IPR2022-00426
(P.T.A.B. June 27, 2023) (“Final Decision”), at J.A. 1. Dur-
ing review, the parties disputed the meaning of “transmit-
ting” and “beacon.” The Board interpreted both terms
according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 7–8.
The Board declined BillJCo’s proposed construction that
precluded transmitting data “to the receiving system
through an intermediary.”1 Id. at 8. The Board also agreed
with Apple that the term “beacon” refers to “a simple peri-
odic broadcast.” Id. at 7.
Apple argued the challenged claims were obvious over
Himmelstein2 in combination with Myr.3 Himmelstein re-
lates to a system for providing information to users based
on the user’s location, where a vehicle can transmit infor-
mation to either neighboring vehicles or a fixed base sta-
tion. Myr relates to a system for gathering traffic
1 The parties repeatedly reference the term “inter-
mediary,” although the patent only mentions this term
once when discussing the “[a]dvantages of having a service
as the intermediary point between clients, users, and sys-
tems.” ’804 patent, 1:39–41. We therefore understand the
term “intermediary” to mean “an intermediary point be-
tween clients, users, or systems.”
2 U.S. Patent No. 7,123,926 (“Himmelstein”).
3 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0014181 (“Myr”).
Case: 23-2348 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 03/14/2025

-- 3 of 8 --

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 4
information using cellular networks and, pertinent here,
discloses using periodic data transmissions. BillJCo also
asserted objective indicia of non-obviousness.
The Board determined that the challenged claims were
unpatentable in view of Himmelstein and Myr. Id. at 20.
The Board determined that Himmelstein disclosed every
disputed claim element, except periodic beaconing, which
it found was disclosed by Myr. Id. at 10–14. It also agreed
with Apple that a skilled artisan would be motivated to
combine Himmelstein with Myr’s periodic beaconing to
conserve power and reduce cost. Id. at 14–16. The Board
rejected BillJCo’s assertion of non-obviousness. Id. at 19.
BillJCo timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
DISCUSSION
BillJCo raises two principal issues on appeal: that the
Board erred in claim construction, and that the Board’s de-
terminations relative to obviousness and objective indicia
of non-obviousness are unsupported by substantial evi-
dence. We review the Board’s legal determinations de
novo, In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004),
and its factual findings for substantial evidence, In re Gart-
side, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
I. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
BillJCo asserts that the Board erred by construing the
“transmitting” and “beacon” terms by their plain and ordi-
nary meaning. We disagree. Claim construction is a ques-
tion of law that can involve factual underpinnings. Teva
Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 333
(2015). We review de novo the Board’s claim constructions
that are based solely on intrinsic evidence, while we review
subsidiary factual findings involving extrinsic evidence for
substantial evidence. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC
v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Case: 23-2348 Document: 53 Page: 4 Filed: 03/14/2025

-- 4 of 8 --

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 5
A
BillJCo argues the Board erred in its construction of
the term “transmitting” to not preclude transmission via
an intermediary. Appellant Br. 14. We disagree. Claim 1
requires that the unidirectional wireless data record is sent
using “the sending data processing system [and received]
by a plurality of receiving mobile data processing systems
in a wireless vicinity” of the sender. ’804 patent, Cl. 1
(118:24–27). We see no requirement that the system pre-
cludes the use of an intermediary to facilitate the transmis-
sion.
BillJCo appears to argue that the plain meaning of the
claim term “unidirectional” means to exclude an interme-
diary. Appellant Br. 19–20. But the patent only refers to
“unidirectional” as the direction of the communication path
(i.e., a one-way path from the sender to the receiver versus
a bidirectional or two-way path where the receiver returns
information). ’804 patent, 18:4–22, 38–42. A “unidirec-
tional” communication could therefore be transmitted in
one direction from the sender through an intermediary and
to the receiving mobile system.
BillJCo asserts that the specification discloses an em-
bodiment that does not require an intermediary service,
but it also discloses an embodiment where intermediary
services such as centralized processing may be warranted,
for example, “to house [a mobile system’s] whereabouts in-
formation.” ’804 patent, 57:33–41. BillJCo does not argue,
nor do we see, any disclaimer of the use of an intermediary,
such as a “clear and unmistakable” prosecution history dis-
claimer. See Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788,
798–99 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding that a disavowal of claim
scope, whether in the specification or prosecution history,
must be clear and unmistakable). The Board, therefore,
correctly concluded the “transmitting” limitation does not
preclude transmission via an intermediary.
Case: 23-2348 Document: 53 Page: 5 Filed: 03/14/2025

-- 5 of 8 --

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 6
B
With respect to the claim term “beacon,” the parties
agree that the term should be construed according to its
plain and ordinary meaning but disagree on what that
meaning is. Appellant Br. 29. Apple argues that the cor-
rect construction was: “a simple periodic broadcast.” Final
Decision, J.A. 7. BillJCo asserts a beacon must also attract
attention to the sender. Appellant Br. 29–30.
The specification supports the Board’s construction.
The specification discusses a beacon in the context of
“[b]eaconing hotspots, or other broadcasters.” ’804 patent,
114:14–15. It refers to services that “periodically broadcast
(beacon) their reference whereabouts.” Id. at 113:54. Bill-
JCo asserts that beacon may also refer to an alternative
transmission type because the term is used in parentheti-
cals. Appellant Br. 35–36. But we find no such hidden
meaning in the specification’s use of parentheticals.4 Bill-
JCo also argues that whether a broadcast is a beacon de-
pends on an intent to direct attention to the sender.
Appellant Br. 29–30. The specification, however, does not
support this interpretation. Although the specification ref-
erences “beacon” or “beaconing” eight times, it does not ex-
plicitly discuss an intent to attract attention to the sender.
See generally ’804 patent.
Finally, BillJCo contends the Board improperly ig-
nored expert testimony that supports its construction. Ap-
pellant Br. 29–30. But we find no error in the Board not
addressing “extrinsic evidence that limits the claim scope
4 Indeed, the specification utilizes parentheticals ex-
tensively to reference acronyms or terms used synony-
mously. See, e.g., id. at 15:43 (“Send queue 24 (Transmit
(Tx) queue”)). Parentheticals are also used in conjunction
with the term “or” to reference alternatives. See, e.g., id. at
18:63 (“bus (or switch)”).
Case: 23-2348 Document: 53 Page: 6 Filed: 03/14/2025

-- 6 of 8 --

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 7
in a manner not contemplated by the intrinsic record.” We-
ber, Inc. v. Provisur Techs., Inc., 92 F.4th 1059, 1070 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Provisur Techs., Inc. v. Weber,
Inc, 145 S. Ct. 173 (2024).
In sum, the Board’s construction of the term “beacon”
as “a simple periodic broadcast” is supported by substantial
evidence and we see no reason to disturb it. Final Decision,
J.A. 7.
II. OBVIOUSNESS
BillJCo argues that the Board erred in its determina-
tion that Himmelstein and Myr together disclose the as-
serted claims, and that a person of skill in the art would
not be motivated to combine Himmelstein and Myr. We
disagree. We first note that BillJCo’s obviousness argu-
ments are largely premised on its failed claim construction
that the Board properly rejected. See, e.g., Kamstrup A/S
v. Axioma Metering UAB, 43 F.4th 1374, 1385 (Fed. Cir.
2022); Appellants Br. 41; supra Discussion Section I. Sec-
ond, the Board rejected BillJCo’s argument that Himmel-
stein disparaged using cell phone-based systems like those
disclosed in Myr. Instead, the Board credited Apple’s ex-
pert testimony that a skilled artisan would use Myr’s peri-
odic beaconing to provide accurate location data with
minimal power. Final Decision, J.A. 14–16. The Board
also cited Federal Circuit precedent that increased energy
efficiency may establish a motivation to combine. Id. at
14–15 (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784,
797–99 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). Substantial evidence therefore
supports the Board’s obviousness findings.
III. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS
Finally, BillJCo argues that the Board erred in its anal-
ysis of non-obviousness. With respect to copying, the Board
found that BillJCo’s sole evidence of copying—unsolicited
communications to Apple regarding its then-pending pa-
tent applications—failed to show that Apple altered its
Case: 23-2348 Document: 53 Page: 7 Filed: 03/14/2025

-- 7 of 8 --

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 8
product designs to incorporate BillJCo’s patented technol-
ogy. Id (citing Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 941 F.3d
1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Concerning commercial suc-
cess, the Board determined that BillJCo’s licensing efforts
were “unconvincing,” noting that BillJCo failed to show the
’804 patent’s significance among over thirty licensed pa-
tents. Final Decision, J.A. 18–19. We have noted that “the
mere existence” of licenses, alone, does not establish sec-
ondary considerations sufficient to overcome an obvious-
ness finding. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392
F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and
citation omitted). Based on the forgoing, we conclude that
the Board’s non-obviousness determination is supported by
substantial evidence.
C ONCLUSION
We have considered BillJCo’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the Board’s decision that claims 1 and 10–12 of the
’804 patent are unpatentable as obvious.
AFFIRMED
C OSTS
Costs against BillJCo.
Case: 23-2348 Document: 53 Page: 8 Filed: 03/14/2025

-- 8 of 8 --