Case: 24-1468 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 07/21/2025
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD., Appellant
v.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Appellee ______________________
2024-1468 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022- 01022. ______________________
Decided: July 21, 2025 ______________________
KEVIN RUSSELL, Russell & Woofter LLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by DANIEL WOOFTER; ROBERT PARRISH FREEMAN, JR., Maschoff Bren- nan P.L.L.C., Park City, UT.
ANDREW M. MASON, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Port- land, OR, argued for appellee. Also represented by SARAH ELISABETH JELSEMA, FRANK MORTON-PARK, JOHN D. VANDENBERG. ______________________ Case: 24-1468 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 07/21/2025
Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. PROST, Circuit Judge. Largan Precision Co., Ltd. (“Largan”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,514,499 (“the ’499 patent”) determining all chal- lenged claims unpatentable. J.A. 1–79. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. BACKGROUND The ’499 patent is titled “Optical Image Capturing Lens Assembly.” ’499 patent Title (capitalization normal- ized). It “relates to a compact optical image capturing lens assembly applicable to electronic products.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 14–16. Claim 15 recites: 15. An optical image capturing lens assembly com- prising, in order from an object side to an image side: a first lens element with positive refractive power having a convex object-side surface; a second lens element with negative refractive power; a third lens element with refractive power; a fourth lens element with refractive power; a fifth lens element with positive refractive power made of plastic material, wherein an object-side surface and an image-side surface of the fifth lens element are aspheric; and a sixth lens element with negative refractive power made of plastic material and having a concave im- age-side surface, wherein an object-side surface Case: 24-1468 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 07/21/2025
LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD. v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC 3
and the image-side surface of the sixth lens ele- ment are aspheric, and the sixth lens element has at least one inflection point formed on at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side sur- face thereof; wherein the first through sixth lens elements are six independent and non-cemented lens elements, a focal length of the optical image capturing lens assembly is f, an entrance pupil diameter of the op- tical image capturing lens assembly is EPD, a dis- tance perpendicular to the optical axis between a non-axial critical point on the image-side surface of the sixth lens element and the optical axis is Yc, and a distance perpendicular to the optical axis be- tween the maximum effective diameter position and the optical axis is Yd, the following relation- ships are satisfied: 1.5
(and one within the claimed range) with a reasonable ex- pectation of success. J.A. 29. The Board reached similar conclusions about the “1.7903 F.3d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). “Where two different conclusions may be war- ranted based on the evidence of record, the Board’s decision to favor one conclusion over the other is the type of decision that must be sustained by this court as supported by sub- stantial evidence.” In re Chudik, 851 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). On appeal, Largan challenges the Board’s finding that a POSA would have been motivated to modify KR872 with a lower f-number with a reasonable expectation of success. Appellant’s Br. 26. We reject Largan’s challenge. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that a POSA would have been motivated to modify KR872 with an f-number within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of success. First, the Board credited the testi- mony of Motorola’s expert, Dr. Milster, that a POSA would have been motivated to use a lower f-number to allow more Case: 24-1468 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 07/21/2025
LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD. v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC 5
light into the lens system to provide better images in high- action and low-light settings. J.A. 29 (citing J.A. 442 ¶ 69; 466–67 ¶¶ 118, 121). The Board also credited Dr. Milster’s testimony that it was known that lower f-numbers were de- sirable for high-action photography and to improve perfor- mance in low-light conditions “as this testimony is supported by the prior art.” J.A. 29 (citing J.A. 467 ¶¶ 122– 23). Second, the Board found persuasive Dr. Milster’s testi- mony that a POSA would have had a reasonable expecta- tion of success in modifying KR872’s multi-lens system with an f-number within the claimed range. J.A. 29–31. The Board found Dr. Milster’s testimony that f-numbers as low as 1.5 were well known in the art supported by exam- ples of prior art multi-lens systems, including a six-lens system, with f-numbers in the claimed range. J.A. 30 (cit- ing J.A. 467 ¶ 123). The Board also noted that it was known as desirable for cell phone cameras to have an f- number between two and three. J.A. 30. The Board fur- ther credited Dr. Milster’s testimony, supported by prior art examples, that multi-lens systems such as KR872 were inherently capable of supporting low f-numbers. J.A. 33 (citing J.A. 467–68 ¶ 124, 6817–18 ¶ 18). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that a POSA would have been motivated to modify KR872’s lens system to have an f-number within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of success.1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 24-1468 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 07/21/2025
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD., Appellant
v.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Appellee ______________________
2024-1468 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022- 01022. ______________________
Decided: July 21, 2025 ______________________
KEVIN RUSSELL, Russell & Woofter LLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by DANIEL WOOFTER; ROBERT PARRISH FREEMAN, JR., Maschoff Bren- nan P.L.L.C., Park City, UT.
ANDREW M. MASON, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Port- land, OR, argued for appellee. Also represented by SARAH ELISABETH JELSEMA, FRANK MORTON-PARK, JOHN D. VANDENBERG. ______________________ Case: 24-1468 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 07/21/2025
Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. PROST, Circuit Judge. Largan Precision Co., Ltd. (“Largan”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,514,499 (“the ’499 patent”) determining all chal- lenged claims unpatentable. J.A. 1–79. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. BACKGROUND The ’499 patent is titled “Optical Image Capturing Lens Assembly.” ’499 patent Title (capitalization normal- ized). It “relates to a compact optical image capturing lens assembly applicable to electronic products.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 14–16. Claim 15 recites: 15. An optical image capturing lens assembly com- prising, in order from an object side to an image side: a first lens element with positive refractive power having a convex object-side surface; a second lens element with negative refractive power; a third lens element with refractive power; a fourth lens element with refractive power; a fifth lens element with positive refractive power made of plastic material, wherein an object-side surface and an image-side surface of the fifth lens element are aspheric; and a sixth lens element with negative refractive power made of plastic material and having a concave im- age-side surface, wherein an object-side surface Case: 24-1468 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 07/21/2025
LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD. v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC 3
and the image-side surface of the sixth lens ele- ment are aspheric, and the sixth lens element has at least one inflection point formed on at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side sur- face thereof; wherein the first through sixth lens elements are six independent and non-cemented lens elements, a focal length of the optical image capturing lens assembly is f, an entrance pupil diameter of the op- tical image capturing lens assembly is EPD, a dis- tance perpendicular to the optical axis between a non-axial critical point on the image-side surface of the sixth lens element and the optical axis is Yc, and a distance perpendicular to the optical axis be- tween the maximum effective diameter position and the optical axis is Yd, the following relation- ships are satisfied: 1.5
(and one within the claimed range) with a reasonable ex- pectation of success. J.A. 29. The Board reached similar conclusions about the “1.7903 F.3d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). “Where two different conclusions may be war- ranted based on the evidence of record, the Board’s decision to favor one conclusion over the other is the type of decision that must be sustained by this court as supported by sub- stantial evidence.” In re Chudik, 851 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). On appeal, Largan challenges the Board’s finding that a POSA would have been motivated to modify KR872 with a lower f-number with a reasonable expectation of success. Appellant’s Br. 26. We reject Largan’s challenge. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that a POSA would have been motivated to modify KR872 with an f-number within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of success. First, the Board credited the testi- mony of Motorola’s expert, Dr. Milster, that a POSA would have been motivated to use a lower f-number to allow more Case: 24-1468 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 07/21/2025
LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD. v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC 5
light into the lens system to provide better images in high- action and low-light settings. J.A. 29 (citing J.A. 442 ¶ 69; 466–67 ¶¶ 118, 121). The Board also credited Dr. Milster’s testimony that it was known that lower f-numbers were de- sirable for high-action photography and to improve perfor- mance in low-light conditions “as this testimony is supported by the prior art.” J.A. 29 (citing J.A. 467 ¶¶ 122– 23). Second, the Board found persuasive Dr. Milster’s testi- mony that a POSA would have had a reasonable expecta- tion of success in modifying KR872’s multi-lens system with an f-number within the claimed range. J.A. 29–31. The Board found Dr. Milster’s testimony that f-numbers as low as 1.5 were well known in the art supported by exam- ples of prior art multi-lens systems, including a six-lens system, with f-numbers in the claimed range. J.A. 30 (cit- ing J.A. 467 ¶ 123). The Board also noted that it was known as desirable for cell phone cameras to have an f- number between two and three. J.A. 30. The Board fur- ther credited Dr. Milster’s testimony, supported by prior art examples, that multi-lens systems such as KR872 were inherently capable of supporting low f-numbers. J.A. 33 (citing J.A. 467–68 ¶ 124, 6817–18 ¶ 18). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that a POSA would have been motivated to modify KR872’s lens system to have an f-number within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of success.1
1 Given our ruling, we need not reach the Board’s al- ternative finding concerning obvious to try, J.A. 34–46, or Largan’s arguments regarding the same. Case: 24-1468 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 07/21/2025
CONCLUSION We have considered Largan’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. AFFIRMED