Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLC

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
EPIC GAMES, INC.,
Appellant
v.
INGENIOSHARE, LLC,
Appellee
______________________
2023-2177, 2023-2178, 2023-2179, 2023-2180
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2022-
00202, IPR2022-00291, IPR2022-00294, IPR2022-00295.
______________________
Decided: April 24, 2025
______________________
CAROLYN CHANG, Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang
LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellant. Also repre-
sented by RYAN J. MARTON.
STEPHEN ROBERT RISLEY , Kent & Risley LLC, Al-
pharetta, GA, argued for appellee.
______________________
Before D YK, CLEVENGER , and P ROST , Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-2177 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 04/24/2025

-- 1 of 12 --

EPIC GAMES, INC. v. INGENIOSHARE, LLC 2
D YK, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”) appeals the final
written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(“Board”) in IPR2022-00202, IPR2022-00291, IPR2022-
00294, and IPR2022-00295, concerning U.S. Patent
Nos. 10,142,810 (the “’810 patent”), 10,708,727 (the
“’727 patent”), and 10,492,038 (the “’038 patent”) (collec-
tively, the “challenged patents”). The challenged patents
are generally directed to managing electronic communica-
tions. The patent claims recite the term “network-based
portal,” which the Board construed as residing on the
server side of a network for all three patents. Based on this
claim construction, the Board determined that Epic had
not demonstrated that the prior art relied on in the petition
disclosed a network-based portal as required by the chal-
lenged patent claims, and thus that Epic had not demon-
strated that claims 1–20 of the ’810 patent, claims 1–9 and
15–17 of the ’727 patent, and claims 7–12, 22–24, and 33–
67 of the ’038 patent (the “challenged claims”) were un-
patentable as obvious. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
IngenioShare, LLC (“IngenioShare”) is the owner of the
’810, ’727, and ’038 patents. The challenged claims gener-
ally recite certain patented functionality for managing
electronic communications, including providing communi-
cation options to a user, selecting different communication
modes or options, sending and receiving messages, and al-
lowing a user to block communications and control the
sharing of contact information. We refer to that function-
ality as the communications management functionality.
The claims also recite that the communications manage-
ment functionality uses “a network-based portal at least
based on Internet protocol.” For example, claim 1 of the
’810 patent recites:
Case: 23-2177 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 04/24/2025

-- 2 of 12 --

EPIC GAMES, INC. v. INGENIOSHARE, LLC 3
1. A computer-implemented method for manag-
ing electronic communications using at least a
network-based portal at least based on Internet
protocol, the method comprising:
providing a plurality of communication op-
tions to a first user to be selected as a se-
lected option of communication for a
message from the first user to the second
user via an electronic device associated
with the second user
. . . .
wherein all of the communication
options use one identifier associ-
ated with the second user for the
second user to receive messages, at
least in view of the network-based
portal being based on the Internet
protocol;
receiving an indication regarding one of the
plurality of communication options, via the
network-based portal, from an electronic
device associated with the first user . . .
permitting the second user to block the first
user from reaching the second user via the
network-based portal; and
enabling, via the network-based portal, the
message to be received by the second user
through the electronic device associated
with the second user, using the selected op-
tion of communication, based on the one
identifier associated with the second user,
in view of the second user not blocking the
first user from reaching the second user . . .
Case: 23-2177 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 04/24/2025

-- 3 of 12 --

EPIC GAMES, INC. v. INGENIOSHARE, LLC 4
wherein the method comprises determin-
ing availability of the second user,
wherein the method requires contact infor-
mation associated with the second user to
allow the second user to receive messages
via the network-based portal,
wherein even when the message is received
by the second user through the electronic
device . . . the contact information associ-
ated with the second user is not provided
via the network-based portal to the first
user through the electronic device associ-
ated with the first user, and
wherein the one identifier associated with
the second user is distinct from the contact
information associated with the second
user.
’810 patent, col. 20 ll. 2–58 (emphasis added); see also
’727 patent, col. 19 l. 61–col. 20 l. 63 (claim 1); ’038 patent,
col. 21 l. 50–col. 22 l. 43 (claim 7).
Epic petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the
challenged claims in four separate IPRs, alleging that the
claims of the three challenged patents were obvious over
certain prior art references that disclosed communication
management systems and electronic messaging systems.1
The Board did not reach whether the prior art made such
disclosures but instead focused its determinations on
1 Across the different IPRs, Epic argued that the
claims were obvious over different combinations of the
prior art references Diacakis, Hullfish, Loveland, Tani-
gawa, and/or Takahashi although Epic did not assert all of
those references against every claim.
Case: 23-2177 Document: 40 Page: 4 Filed: 04/24/2025

-- 4 of 12 --

EPIC GAMES, INC. v. INGENIOSHARE, LLC 5
whether the prior art disclosed the claimed “network-based
portal.”
In all four IPRs, the parties disputed the construction
of “network-based portal” and, in particular, whether the
claimed portal must reside only on the server side of the
network or may also encompass client-side functionality,
like a client-side user interface. Epic argued that the term
is broad enough to capture client-side interfaces, and in its
petitions, Epic identified figures in the prior art showing
client-resident user interfaces, which Epic argued disclosed
the network-based portal. See, e.g., J.A. 385, 416–17;
J.A. 4607, 4639–40; J.A. 5742–43; J.A. 6943–44. Ingen-
ioShare argued the claimed portal is distinguishable from
a client device and instead must reside on the server side
of the network.
Concerned that IngenioShare’s construction would ex-
clude embodiments depicted in figures 7–11 of the specifi-
cations, the Board at institution disagreed that a network-
based portal resides only on the server side of the network,
but it invited the parties to provide additional briefing
about the meaning of network-based portal. In its final
written decisions, a majority of the Board determined that
a network-based portal resides on the server side of the net-
work. See Epic Games, Inc. v. IngenioShare, LLC,
No. IPR2022-00202, Paper No. 29, at 28 (P.T.A.B. May 19,
2023) (“Board Decision”).2 The Board began with
2 Citations to the Board’s final written decisions here
are to the final written decision in IPR2022-00202 for the
’810 patent. The relevant portions of the Board’s final writ-
ten decisions in IPR2022-00291, IPR2022-00294, and
IPR2022-00295 are substantively identical. Compare
Board Decision with Epic Games, Inc. v. IngenioShare,
LLC, No. IPR2022-00291, Paper No. 30 (P.T.A.B. May 19,
Case: 23-2177 Document: 40 Page: 5 Filed: 04/24/2025

-- 5 of 12 --

EPIC GAMES, INC. v. INGENIOSHARE, LLC 6
dictionary definitions, which generally defined a “portal” as
a website that serves as an entry point or starting site to
the Internet. The Board then determined that these defi-
nitions were consistent with the specification’s uses of the
terms “portal” and “gateway,” which the Board concluded
were synonymous. In its final written decisions, the Board
ultimately accepted IngenioShare’s argument that a per-
son of ordinary skill in the art would understand that fig-
ures 7–11 are directed to methods performed on a client
device upon receiving a message, and IngenioShare’s con-
struction did not exclude embodiments from the claims.
Based on its claim construction, the Board then con-
cluded that Epic had not demonstrated that the prior art
relied on in its petitions disclosed a server-side network-
based portal. The Board determined that the interfaces
that Epic identified in the prior art were “client-resident
user interfaces,” Board Decision at 36–37, and were not on
the server-side, and thus, Epic had not demonstrated that
the challenged claims were unpatentable. Administrative
Patent Judge Amundson dissented from the Board’s claim
construction. He agreed with Epic that “a ‘network-based
portal’ encompasses a user interface in a client device that
connects clients to a network.” J.A. 61; J.A. 127; J.A. 189;
accord J.A. 253.
Epic timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
2023), Epic Games, Inc. v. IngenioShare, LLC,
No. IPR2022-00294, Paper No. 30 (P.T.A.B. May 19, 2023),
Epic Games, Inc. v. IngenioShare, LLC, No. IPR2022-
00295, Paper No. 27 (P.T.A.B. May 19, 2023). Similarly,
throughout this opinion, we cite to the specification of the
’810 patent, which, in relevant parts, is the same as the
specification for the ’727 and ’038 patents.
Case: 23-2177 Document: 40 Page: 6 Filed: 04/24/2025

-- 6 of 12 --

EPIC GAMES, INC. v. INGENIOSHARE, LLC 7
D ISCUSSION
I
On appeal, Epic challenges the Board’s construction of
“network-based portal” as residing only on the server side
of the network. Epic argues that the specification’s discus-
sion of the phone performing the communications manage-
ment functionality, including in figures 7–11,
demonstrates that the claimed “network-based portal” is
broad enough to encompass a client-side interface residing
on the client device.
“Claim construction requires a determination as to how
a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a
claim term ‘in the context of the entire patent, including
the specification.’” Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec
Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Phil-
lips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc)). In reviewing the Board’s claim construction, we
review the ultimate claim construction de novo and the
Board’s subsidiary factual determinations concerning ex-
trinsic evidence for substantial evidence. Perfect Surgical
Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1012
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
In construing the claims, the specification is “the single
best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The specification
here, while not a model of clarity, discloses two general em-
bodiments for performing communications management—
in one embodiment, the network-based portal performs the
communications management functionality and in an-
other, an electronic device (e.g., a phone) performs the com-
munications management functionality. For example, in
the first embodiment, the specification provides that “a
portal is formed allowing the user to receive communica-
tions from numerous sources through different modes,” and
Case: 23-2177 Document: 40 Page: 7 Filed: 04/24/2025

-- 7 of 12 --

EPIC GAMES, INC. v. INGENIOSHARE, LLC 8
this portal “can be used to control the selection and setting
of different intelligent communication modes for the user.”
’810 patent, col. 4 ll. 13–15, 39–41; see also id. col. 5 ll. 60–
61 (“[A] portal provides a number of intelligent communi-
cation modes . . . .”). The portal can “include[] a database
to keep track of the user’s different contacts . . . and the ac-
cess priorities of each contact” and can “dynamically
change the access priorities of a caller trying to reach the
user.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 53–55, 63–64; see also id. at col. 6 l. 39
(“The database can, for example, be in the portal.”).
In the second embodiment, a client device performs the
same communications management functionality. The
specification describes that databases and “intelligent com-
munication modes [for selection] . . . are in the phone” and
the phone “automatically manage[s] the communication.”
’810 patent, col. 7 ll. 13–15, 24–25; see also id. at col. 6
ll. 40–41 (“[T]he database is in a personal communication
device of the user.”); id. at col. 7 ll. 6–27 (noting that defin-
ing contact classes, setting up the access priority database,
and categorizing a user’s contacts all may occur in the
phone). The specification does not describe the portal as
located in the phone even though it describes elements for
the communications management functionality, like data-
bases, as being in the phone. The specification describes
that the phone can interact with and utilize the portal, sug-
gesting the portal is separate from the phone. For example,
it describes the following:
A portal or gateway approach could provide general
Internet access to one or more embodiments of the
communication management systems so that users
can configure the system behavior they desire. The
portal or gateway can then facilitate download of a
database or update thereto to a communication de-
vice, such as a phone.
Id. at col. 6 l. 66–col. 7 l. 5; see also id. at col. 6 ll. 40–44
(describing that when the database is in a personal
Case: 23-2177 Document: 40 Page: 8 Filed: 04/24/2025

-- 8 of 12 --

EPIC GAMES, INC. v. INGENIOSHARE, LLC 9
communication device, “[t]he portal accesses the personal
communication device”).
While the specification demonstrates that the portal
does not reside on the phone, it does not make clear where
the network-based portal is located.3 The claims are clear
that a “portal” is “network-based.” Substantial evidence
from the dictionary definitions (not presented before insti-
tution) supports the Board’s determination that a portal re-
sides on the server side of the network. Phillips, 415 F.3d
at 1322–23 (“[J]udges are free to consult dictionaries and
technical treatises [‘]at any time in order to better under-
stand the underlying technology and may also rely on dic-
tionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as
the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition
found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent docu-
ments.[’]” (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584 n.6)).
The Board, as permitted by Phillips,4 considered the
following dictionary definitions as to the meaning of the
word “portal”:
3 IngenioShare argues that the specification defines
a “portal” as a “gateway,” and the specification further de-
fines “gateway” as a “networked server.” But even assum-
ing the specification uses the term “portal” as synonymous
with “gateway,” the specification’s single reference to “a
gateway computer” as “one example of a networked server”
is not determinative of a network-based portal residing
only on a server. See Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Net-
works, Inc., 805 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explain-
ing that use of a term in one (preferred) embodiment “does
not provide the clarity necessary to find that the patentees
intended to limit the term . . . to the . . . embodiment”).
4 See also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip.,
Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining it is
Case: 23-2177 Document: 40 Page: 9 Filed: 04/24/2025

-- 9 of 12 --

EPIC GAMES, INC. v. INGENIOSHARE, LLC 10
• “In the context of the Internet, a portal refers to any
commonly used website serving as an entry point to
the Internet, usually with many links to a wide va-
riety of information, data, resources, and services.”
J.A. 5412 (quoting Portal (Internet), Techopedia
(last updated Dec. 2016), https://www.techope-
dia.com/definition/13077/portal-internet).
• “Portal is a term, generally synonymous with gate-
way, for a World Wide Web site that is or proposes
to be a major starting site for users when they get
connected to the Web or that users tend to visit as
an anchor site.” J.A. 5412 (quoting Portal, Tech-
Target (last updated Dec. 2021), https://www.tech-
target.com/whatis/definition/portal).
• “A portal is a web-based platform that collects infor-
mation from different sources into a single user in-
terface and presents users with the most relevant
information for their context.” J.A. 3816.
• “A mobile portal is an Internet gateway that enables
mobile devices to connect remotely with an enter-
prise intranet or extranet, typically via a Web
browser interface.” J.A. 3821.
These dictionary definitions generally describe portals as
“websites” or “web-based platforms.” IngenioShare’s ex-
pert Dr. George Rouskas provided the first two definitions
and further opined that “[w]ebsites are hosted on web serv-
ers, not on client communication devices.” J.A. 5412 ¶ 49.
He further opined that the definitions are consistent with
his understanding of the word portal based on his more
“entirely appropriate” to turn to extrinsic evidence when
“the intrinsic evidence is silent as to the plain meaning of
a term”).
Case: 23-2177 Document: 40 Page: 10 Filed: 04/24/2025

-- 10 of 12 --

EPIC GAMES, INC. v. INGENIOSHARE, LLC 11
than thirty years of experience and that these definitions
had not changed over the last twenty–thirty years.
We agree with the Board that there is no “meaningful
conflict” between the definitions and that they provide con-
text for understanding the meaning of network-based por-
tal. Board Decision at 17. Construing “network-based
portal” to reside on the server side of a network is not in-
consistent with the claim language or specification. That
there are embodiments in the specification where the com-
munications management functionality is performed by
the phone does not mean that a portal resides on the phone,
and as already explained, the specification instead sup-
ports the view that the network-based portal is not a part
of the phone.
Epic argues that figures 7–11 show embodiments
where “network-based portal” functionality is performed by
a user’s phone, and construing “network-based portal” to
reside on the server side of a network excludes preferred
embodiments. See Appellant’s Reply Br. 17. Figures 7–11
depict a portion of communication management (call, audio
message, text message, and reply message responses as
well as a message presentation process) performed by an
electronic device such as a phone. The Board determined
that “the issue is not merely whether the client device is
capable of implementing functionality in some embodi-
ments that is implemented by a server-resident network-
based portal in other embodiments[,] [but] . . . instead
whether that functionality is specifically implemented at
the client with what Petitioner adequately shows to be a
‘network-based portal.’” Board Decision at 23. In other
words, that the figures depict processes performed on a
phone does not mean that the network-based portal is lo-
cated on the phone. These figures and their descriptions
are not inconsistent with an embodiment where some func-
tionality is performed by a phone and other functionality is
performed by a server-side network-based portal. Notably,
Case: 23-2177 Document: 40 Page: 11 Filed: 04/24/2025

-- 11 of 12 --

EPIC GAMES, INC. v. INGENIOSHARE, LLC 12
the portions of the specification describing these figures
does not use the term “portal” or “network-based portal.”
To be sure, the definition of “network-based portal” as
residing on the server side of the network does not exclude
combining the network-based portal with a phone to per-
form the communications management functionality or ac-
cessing the portal through the phone. As explained, the
specification in fact contemplates such a combination. But
Epic did not dispute the Board’s determination that the in-
terfaces it identified on the electronic devices in the prior
art were “client-resident user interfaces,” and it did not ar-
gue that the prior art rendered the claims obvious because
it depicted communication functionality performed by a
phone in combination with a network-based portal as de-
fined by the Board.
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. We affirm the Board’s claim
construction that a “network-based portal” resides on the
server side of a network and its determination that Epic
did not demonstrate that the claims are unpatentable as
obvious.
AFFIRMED
Case: 23-2177 Document: 40 Page: 12 Filed: 04/24/2025

-- 12 of 12 --