Hafeman v. Google LLC

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2026

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

CAROLYN W. HAFEMAN,

Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Appellees

JOHN A. SQUIRES, UNDER SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________

2024-1600, 2024-1601, 2024-1602, 2024-1603, 2024-1604,

2024-1605

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2022-

01188, IPR2022-01189, IPR2022-01190, IPR2022-01191,

IPR2022-01192, IPR2022-01193.

______________________

Decided: June 5, 2026

______________________

LAWRENCE MILTON HADLEY, Glaser Weil Fink Howard

Jordan & Shapiro LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appel-

lant. Also represented by JASON LINGER, STEPHEN

UNDERWOOD.

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 2 Filed: 06/05/2026

2 HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC

ANDREW BALUCH, Smith Baluch LLP, Washington, DC,

argued for appellees. Appellee Google LLC also repre-

sented by ELIZABETH LAUGHTON, MATTHEW A. SMITH.

CARRIE ANNE BEYER, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath

LLP, Chicago, IL, for appellee Microsoft Corporation. Also

represented by BRIANNA LYNN SILVERSTEIN, Washington,

DC; KIRSTIN STOLL-DEBELL, Denver, CO.

SHEHLA WYNNE, Office of the Solicitor, United States

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for

intervenor. Also represented by NICHOLAS THEODORE

MATICH, IV, ROBERT J. MCMANUS, MAUREEN DONOVAN

QUELER.

______________________

Before DYK, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

HUGHES, Circuit Judge.

Carolyn Hafeman appeals from final written decisions

of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes re-

views of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,325,122; 10,789,393; and

9,892,287. The Board concluded that all challenged claims

were unpatentable. For the reasons below, we dismiss-in-

part and affirm-in-part.

I

A

Ms. Hafeman owns U.S. Patent Nos. 10,325,122;

10,789,393; and 9,892,287 (collectively, the Challenged Pa-

tents), which are part of the same family and share a com-

mon specification. The ’122 patent, which is representative

for purposes of this appeal, generally relates “to the return

of lost or stolen computers using a recovery screen that ap-

pears during or after boot-up of the computer.” ’122 Patent,

1:25–27. Specifically, it describes methods for “displaying

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 3 Filed: 06/05/2026

HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC 3

information to assist with returning a computer to its

owner,” comprised of “activating a computer” and then au-

tomatically displaying a return screen containing infor-

mation stored in the computer’s memory regarding the

computer’s owner and how the computer may be returned

to the owner. Id. 4:1–10; see also id. 3:30–38, 5:28–31. Fig-

ure 3 is a flow chart capturing an embodiment of the

claimed method:

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 4 Filed: 06/05/2026

4 HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC

Id. fig. 3. This embodiment requires first powering on the

computer, after which the recovery/return information is

automatically displayed either prior to, or alongside, the

login screen. Id. Claim 1 is representative on appeal and

recites:

1. A method for displaying information to assist

with returning a computer comprising the

steps of:

activating a processor to display on a display screen

on the computer which displays information

concerning return information for returning

the computer to an owner from data stored in a

memory of the computer, the screen displaying

return information before or with a lock screen,

to facilitate return of the computer and which

is maintained on or before or with the lock

screen so the return information is visible to

anyone viewing the display screen, the lock

screen locks the display screen and protects the

computer;

initiating or changing return information which

appears on the display through remote commu-

nication without assistance by a user with

the computer, wherein the changing of the re-

turn information is done through an interac-

tive program stored in the memory of the

computer which is remotely accessed only by

the owner of the computer or the party author-

ized by the owner to enable the initiating or

changing of the display screen;

displaying the screen before or with a security

prompt which prevents the user from accessing

operatively the computer; and

activating the processor to allow a message to the

user.

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 5 Filed: 06/05/2026

HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC 5

Id. claim 1 (emphasis added). Critical to this appeal is the

claimed step of “initiating or changing return information

which appears on the display through remote communica-

tion without assistance by a user with the computer”

(the “without assistance” limitation). Id. (emphasis added).

B

In July 2021, Ms. Hafeman filed suit against LG Elec-

tronics Inc. in the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of the

three Challenged Patents (the LG Litigation). The accused

infringing products were LG-made phones, tablets, and

laptops that were sold with pre-loaded Google or Microsoft

“Find My Device” features.

In July 2022, Google and Microsoft filed six IPR peti-

tions against the Challenged Patents, naming LG as a real

party in interest. Google and Microsoft filed two IPR peti-

tions against each of the three Challenged Patents: One pe-

tition attacked the priority dates of each of the Challenged

Patents and asserted prior art based on the assumption of

a post-America Invents Act (AIA) priority date. The other

petition assumed the accuracy of the earlier claimed prior-

ity dates and argued the claims of each of the Challenged

Patents were still unpatentable based on pre-AIA prior art.

Ms. Hafeman opposed institution, arguing that pursuant

to the then-Director’s guidance, 1 institution should be de-

nied given the existence of a parallel district court proceed-

ing, the LG Litigation, involving the same patents and

1 USPTO Director Vidal, Interim Procedure for Dis-

cretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with

Parallel District Court Litigation (issued June 21, 2022)

(rescinded Feb. 28, 2025) (Director Guidance), https://

www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc

_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litiga-

tion_memo_20220621_.pdf [https://perma.cc/7CJ5-JRSG].

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 6 Filed: 06/05/2026

6 HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC

presenting overlapping issues. See J.A. 8018–31. She em-

phasized that there had already been significant invest-

ments in the district court litigation, trial was imminent,

and that there was no agreement between the parties to

minimize duplication of efforts between the district court

and Board proceedings, all of which supported denying in-

stitution.

After Ms. Hafeman filed her opposition to Google and

Microsoft’s IPR petitions, LG served her with a so-called

“Sotera stipulation” in the LG Litigation. See J.A. 4375 (cit-

ing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019,

Paper 12 at 18–19 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020)). In it, LG repre-

sented that, if any of the IPRs were to be instituted, LG

would not pursue in the parallel district court proceeding

“any ground that [Google or Microsoft] raised or reasonably

could have raised” in the IPRs. Id. (alteration in original)

(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)). Google and Microsoft then ar-

gued that LG’s stipulation eliminated efficiency concerns

because LG was named as a real party in interest in the

IPR proceedings and because there was no risk that addi-

tional parties would be added to the district court litigation

who would not be bound by the stipulation because the

deadline for adding parties had passed. Thus, in light of the

Director’s guidance representing that the Board would not

“discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district

court litigation where a petitioner presents [such] a stipu-

lation,” Google and Microsoft argued that institution was

appropriate. Director Guidance at 3; see J.A. 8066–67.

The Board agreed with petitioners Google and Mi-

crosoft and, in January 2023, instituted review on all

grounds for each of the challenged patents, resulting in six

IPR proceedings. See J.A. 8094, 9020, 9803, 10173, 11015,

11393. Ms. Hafeman belatedly requested rehearing of the

Board’s institution decision, arguing that rehearing was

warranted in light of an intervening precedential Board de-

cision and LG’s purported violation of the Sotera stipula-

tion in the LG Litigation. The Board denied Ms. Hafeman’s

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 7 Filed: 06/05/2026

HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC 7

request, explaining that the intervening Board decision

was inapplicable and any violation of the Sotera stipulation

was an issue for the district court to resolve. See J.A. 7830.

Ms. Hafeman continued to argue that institution was im-

proper, suggesting in her Patent Owner’s Response that be-

cause the district court had since concluded that LG

violated the Sotera stipulation in the LG Litigation, the

“Board should exercise its authority to vacate the institu-

tion decision and terminate the IPR.” J.A. 8176.

C

On January 23, 2024, the Board issued three final writ-

ten decisions, one for each of the Challenged Patents. 2 See,

e.g., Google LLC v. Hafeman, Nos. IPR2022-01188,

IPR2022-01189, Paper No. 32, 2024 WL 250494 (P.T.A.B.

Jan. 23, 2024) (Decision). The Board did not revisit

Ms. Hafeman’s continued Sotera- and institution-related

arguments in its decision. See generally id. Regarding the

substantive merits of the petitions, the Board declined to

resolve the priority date dispute, finding that even under

the earliest possible priority date, the Challenged Patents’

claims were nonetheless unpatentable over the combina-

tion of Jenne3 and Cohen, 4 the pre-AIA prior art.

2 As noted, Google and Microsoft filed two IPR peti-

tions against each of the three Challenged Patents, result-

ing in six proceedings. The Board ultimately consolidated

the IPR proceedings by patent, resulting in three Final

Written Decisions (FWDs). Like the parties, we generally

cite to and reference the Board’s decision regarding the

’122 patent as representative on appeal. See Appellant

Br. 19 (citing J.A. 1–36); Appellee Br. 18 (generally quoting

from J.A. 1–36).

3 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0122864 A1.

4 European Pat. App. No. 687968 A2.

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 8 Filed: 06/05/2026

8 HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC

As relevant here, Jenne discloses a computer system

that displays “commercial messages” during user wait

times, like the computer’s boot up process, that can be “up-

dated” remotely via the internet. J.A. 883. The Board’s pa-

tentability analysis relied on Jenne teaching “changing the

content of information through remote communication

without assistance by a user with the computer,” which,

when combined with prior art not implicated by this ap-

peal, rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. See De-

cision, 2024 WL 250494, at *10, *12 (emphasis added). In

doing so, the Board rejected Ms. Hafeman’s argument that

Jenne failed to teach the “without assistance” limitation

because Jenne requires the user “log in and establish an

Internet connection so that communication can occur.” Id.

at *9. Ms. Hafeman argued that “[n]othing, other than

turning on the computer, is required from the user” by the

Challenged Patents’ claims. J.A. 8186. And thus the user

does not need to establish any internet connection, like

Jenne requires. The Board rejected that argument, con-

cluding that Jenne did teach the “without assistance” lim-

itation because “without assistance by a user” refers to the

action of “initiating or changing” the return information

that is displayed to the user and does not, as Ms. Hafeman

contended, extend to the “unrecited action of establishing

the remote communication in the first instance.” Decision,

2024 WL 250494, at *9. Finally, the Board rejected

Ms. Hafeman’s argument that there were strong secondary

considerations of non-obviousness. Id. at *12–14. The

Board concluded that Ms. Hafeman failed to prove a nexus

between her purported commercial embodiment of the in-

vention—known as the Retriever—and her evidence of

praise, commercial success, and copying by others. Id.

at *12.

Ms. Hafeman timely appeals. We have jurisdiction un-

der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 9 Filed: 06/05/2026

HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC 9

II

On appeal, Ms. Hafeman generally argues: (1) that the

Board abused its discretion by failing to address her So-

tera-related arguments in its FWDs; (2) that the Board

wrongly construed “without assistance by a user,” resulting

in an erroneous obviousness finding; and (3) that the Board

improperly disregarded secondary considerations of non-

obviousness. We take each argument in turn.

A

We first consider Ms. Hafeman’s argument that the

Board acted arbitrarily by issuing its FWDs without ad-

dressing her argument that the IPR proceedings should be

terminated given the District Court’s finding that LG vio-

lated the Sotera stipulation. Ms. Hafeman argues that be-

cause the PTAB instituted review based on the

representations made in the Sotera stipulation, LG’s post-

institution violation of that same stipulation warranted

terminating the Board’s review or, at minimum, required

an explanation in the FWD of “whether the violation war-

ranted dismissal.” Appellant Br. 33. Ms. Hafeman asks us

to vacate the Board’s decision and remand with instruc-

tions to the Board to “address the appropriate remedy for

the proven Sotera violation.” Appellant Br. 34.

Google and Microsoft contend that Ms. Hafeman’s ar-

gument amounts to a challenge to the Board’s decision to

institute the IPR proceedings, which is barred from judicial

review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). The Acting Director of the

United States Patent and Trademark Office has intervened

in support of this position. See Intervenor Br. 11–12.

Ms. Hafeman disagrees, arguing that she is not chal-

lenging institution; rather, she is “challenging how the IPR

proceeded after institution.” Appellant Reply Br. 2. She

emphasizes that LG violated the Sotera stipulation after

the Board instituted review, and she contends her appeal

challenges the sufficiency of the Board’s FWDs under the

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 10 Filed: 06/05/2026

10 HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC

APA given the Board’s failure to address that violation. See

id. at 2–4; see id. at 3 (“APA challenges of FWDs are re-

viewable.”). On the present record, however, this is a dis-

tinction without meaningful difference.

A party does not automatically bypass § 314(d)’s bar on

judicial review by characterizing its challenge as one to an

agency action other than the decision to institute. See, e.g.,

Ethanol Boosting Sys., LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 162 F.4th

1151, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2025). By statute, the decision

whether to institute inter partes review is “final and non-

appealable.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). And this bar on judicial re-

view extends both to direct challenges to the decision to

institute review and to matters that are “closely tied to the

application and interpretation of statutes related to” the

decision to institute. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,

579 U.S. 261, 275 (2016). Whether § 314(d) bars our review

thus requires a close examination of the substance of a

party’s arguments and the relief sought to determine

whether it amounts to a challenge, direct or indirect, to the

decision to institute.

For example, the Supreme Court, considering § 314(d),

held that the statute’s language compels the conclusion

“that a party generally cannot contend on appeal that the

agency should have refused ‘to institute an inter partes re-

view.’” Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP, 590 U.S. 45,

52 (2020). In Thryv, the question was whether a party’s ap-

peal from a final written decision holding that a petition

was not untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) was barred

from judicial review by § 314(d). Id. at 60. The Supreme

Court concluded that, “even labeled as an appeal from the

final written decision,” the appeal was nonetheless still

barred by § 314(d) because the “contention remain[ed], es-

sentially, that the agency should have refused to institute

inter partes review.” Id. Thus, a challenge to institution-

related determinations, even when part of an otherwise

proper challenge to a final written decision, remains barred

from review by § 314(d). That Ms. Hafeman purports to

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 11 Filed: 06/05/2026

HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC 11

challenge the FWDs does not enable our review when the

heart of her challenge goes to institution.

Our own caselaw reinforces the application of this prin-

ciple to Ms. Hafeman’s present appeal. In Federal Express

Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., we recently considered a party’s

challenge to a final written decision that was premised on

the decision’s failure to include any analysis of the appel-

lant’s argument that the IPR petition failed to identify all

real parties in interest as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).

See 174 F.4th 910, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2026). The appellant

framed its challenge as “directed to the Board’s conduct

during and after institution” and thus outside the scope of

§ 314(d). Id. at 916. But we rejected that characterization

and nonetheless held the challenge unreviewable under

§ 314(d) because it “still boil[ed] down to a challenge over

whether there should have been institution at all.” Id.

at 917.

Similarly, in Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford

Motor Co., this court considered our ability to review a

challenge to the Board’s decision to defer ruling on a party’s

request for rehearing of an institution decision until after

resolution of a related pending appeal before this court. See

162 F.4th at 1157–58. We rejected the appellant’s charac-

terization of its challenge as an attack on the Board’s pur-

ported “stay” of its institution rehearing decision rather

than a challenge to institution: “And so, despite [Appel-

lant’s] belief that it formally challenges the ‘stay’ rather

than the reconsideration decision, we cannot see its argu-

ment as anything but a challenge to the propriety of the

institution.” Id. at 1158. And we held that “[p]ointing to a

different agency action . . . does not automatically alter the

analysis; § 314(d) applies when a party attempts to dis-

lodge institution.” Id. at 1159.

These cases confirm that Ms. Hafeman’s challenge,

while framed as one aimed at the sufficiency of the Board’s

FWDs, nonetheless remains beyond our review.

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 12 Filed: 06/05/2026

12 HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC

Ms. Hafeman’s reliance on this court’s decisions in

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., 989 F.3d 1018 (Fed. Cir.

2021), and Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,

973 F.3d 1321 (Fed Cir. 2020) is misplaced. She cites these

cases for the proposition that “where an event leading to

IPR termination occurs post-institution, like here, such

challenges may be appealed.” Appellant Reply Br. 4. But

those cases deal with readily distinguishable challenges to

the Board’s estoppel determination and whether the Board

erred in joining already-instituted IPR proceedings. See

Uniloc, 989 F.3d at 1026–27 (“The Board’s ‘no estoppel’ de-

cision thus was later than and separate from its earlier in-

stitution decision, and . . . is a decision we may review.”

(citation omitted)); Facebook, 973 F.3d at 1332 (“In this

case, Windy City’s cross-appeal does not challenge the

Board’s decision to institute Facebook’s follow-on petitions,

but challenges whether the Board’s joinder decisions ex-

ceeded the statutory authority provided by § 315(c).”).

Here, the remedy Ms. Hafeman seeks, and its relation-

ship to institution, eliminates any doubt that § 314(d) bars

our review. Ms. Hafeman argues the Board “should have

terminated the IPRs in light of the Sotera violation, or at

minimum, addressed why the IPRs should proceed in the

FWDs.” Appellant Reply Br. at 9. And she requests that we

vacate the Board’s final written decisions and “remand

with instructions to dismiss” the IPRs. Id. The problem

with Ms. Hafeman’s challenge is that it seeks to terminate

the IPRs for reasons related to the institution decision be-

cause the Sotera stipulation was a consideration for insti-

tution. This makes clear that her challenge “has institution

as its direct, immediate, express subject” and is thus be-

yond our review. IGT v. Zynga Inc., 144 F.4th 1357, 1365

(Fed. Cir. 2025) (cleaned up) (quoting Apple Inc. v. Vidal,

63 F.4th 1, 12 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). This is not a situation

where our review of termination is unrelated to the insti-

tution decision. Cf. Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regul.

Guards, Inc., 33 F.4th 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[W]e

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 13 Filed: 06/05/2026

HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC 13

cannot conclude that the Board’s decision [terminating the

petition] was purely a sanctions decision over which we or-

dinarily would have jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, Ms. Hafe-

man’s challenge is barred from judicial review by § 314(d),

and we must dismiss this portion of her appeal.

B

We next consider Ms. Hafeman’s allegation of error in

the Board’s purported implicit construction of the “without

assistance” limitation. Appellant Br. 35. Ms. Hafeman did

not propose a construction of the “without assistance” lim-

itation to the Board. But, on appeal, she suggests that the

Board nonetheless implicitly construed the limitation

when the Board found that Jenne taught the “without as-

sistance” limitation despite requiring the user first connect

the device to the internet. Google and Microsoft argue that

the Board did not engage in implicit claim construction; ra-

ther, the Board “performed a factual comparison of the pro-

cess in Jenne to the process described in the challenged

patents’ specification and found them to be similar.” Appel-

lee Br. 34 (citing Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,

843 F. App’x 281, 286 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). Ordinarily this dis-

tinction is critical because it dictates our standard of re-

view. See CRFD Rsch., Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330,

1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“We review the Board’s factual

findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions

de novo.”). But where, like here, the outcome is the same

whether reviewed de novo as an implicit claim construc-

tion, or for substantial evidence as only a factual compari-

son to the prior art, the distinction becomes

inconsequential.

Assuming without deciding that the Board construed

the “without assistance” limitation to not prohibit a user

from connecting the device to the internet, we see no error

in that construction and affirm. On appeal, Ms. Hafeman

suggests that the “without assistance” limitation means

that the “user cannot provide any assistance whatsoever

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 14 Filed: 06/05/2026

14 HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC

(besides turning on power) to receive return and recovery

information, including the establishment of an Internet

connection.” Appellant Br. 35. But that construction con-

flicts with the claim’s plain language. See Prima Tek II,

L.L.C. v. Polypap, S.A.R.L., 318 F.3d 1143, 1148 (Fed. Cir.

2003) (“Claim construction begins with the words of the

claim.”). This is clear from a review of the contested claim

language in context:

initiating or changing return information which

appears on the display through remote commu-

nication without assistance by a user with the

computer, wherein the changing of the return

information is done through an interactive pro-

gram stored in the memory of the computer

which is remotely accessed only by the owner of

the computer or the party authorized by the

owner to enable the initiating or changing of

the display screen;

’122 Patent claim 1 (emphasis added). Ms. Hafeman con-

cedes that some connection is required, but nowhere in the

patent’s claim does it speak to who does, or does not, estab-

lish that connection. See Appellant Br. 38 (“Of course, the

computer must be powered on, and there must be some

form of connection available.” (emphasis added)). We agree

with the Board—“without assistance by a user” modifies

the action of “initiating or changing return information”; it

does not limit the unrecited action of establishing an inter-

net connection in the first instance. ’122 Patent claim 1; see

Decision, 2024 WL 250494, at *9.

Ms. Hafeman’s suggested construction also conflicts

with the language in the specification. See Baxalta Inc. v.

Genentech, Inc., 972 F.3d 1341, 1346 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2020)

(“We note that when a construction such as this is incon-

sistent with the plain language of the claims and the writ-

ten description, it is incorrect.”). The specification

emphasizes that it is the claimed invention’s ability to

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 15 Filed: 06/05/2026

HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC 15

remotely communicate updates to the display message and

recovery data that makes its design unique. See ’122 Pa-

tent, 13:43–67. This “unique communication power” allows

the owner to upload changes to the recovery center that are

then downloaded to the protected device such that the in-

formation in the recovery center and the information dis-

played on the device’s screen is the same. Id. 14:22–27. The

specification notes that this claimed improvement “is a

combination” of PDA-type synchronization and the

“McAfee anti-virus software Internet updating capability

where every time you go on-line, your computer 12 auto-

matically checks to make sure that you have the most cur-

rent anti-virus software and automatically updates your

computer 12 with the latest changes.” Id. 14:27–33 (empha-

sis added). Thus, contrary to Ms. Hafeman’s arguments on

appeal, the specification contemplates that a user might in-

itiate the internet connection.

Finally, Ms. Hafeman’s argument that the prosecution

history supports her position on appeal is unpersuasive.

Ms. Hafeman emphasizes that the “without assistance”

limitation was added during prosecution of the parent ap-

plication to overcome a piece of prior art, Broyles, requiring

the computer’s user to push a specific interrupt key to ini-

tiate the remote change in ownership information. See

J.A. 1142–43. She argues this makes clear that the “with-

out assistance” limitation cannot be satisfied if a user is

required to press an interrupt key, which logically means

it is not satisfied where a user must establish an internet

connection. We are unconvinced. At most, the prosecution

history demonstrates an intent to bypass Broyles’ require-

ment that the user push an interrupt key to specifically in-

itiate the process for changing the ownership information.

See J.A. 1142 (“When it is desired to change the ownership

information regarding ownership tag, Broyles teaches this

is done by a user depressing a suitable key, generating a

keyboard interrupt during step 610.”). And we agree with

the Board that Jenne discloses making remote updates

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 16 Filed: 06/05/2026

16 HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC

without relying on the user to press a specific key to initiate

the change. See Decision, 2024 WL 250494, at *10.

For these reasons, we reject Ms. Hafeman’s suggestion

that the Board erroneously construed the “without assis-

tance” limitation. In light of this holding, we do not need to

reach Ms. Hafeman’s dependent argument that the Jenne-

Cohen combination fails to meet the “without assistance”

limitation under her suggested construction.

C

Lastly, we consider Ms. Hafeman’s suggestion that the

Board’s analysis of secondary considerations of non-obvi-

ousness warrants reversal. Evidence regarding secondary

considerations of non-obviousness must be considered, if

present, in an obviousness determination. See Pentec, Inc.

v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 315 (Fed. Cir.

1985). This includes evidence of commercial success, copy-

ing, industry praise, skepticism, long-felt but unsolved

need, and failure of others. Volvo Penta of the Ams., LLC v.

Brunswick Corp., 81 F.4th 1202, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2023). But

for such evidence to be given weight, the “proponent must

establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of

the claimed invention.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,

1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A presumption of a nexus arises

when the patentee shows that the asserted secondary evi-

dence “is tied to a specific product that ‘embodies the

claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Volvo,

81 F.4th at 1210 (citation omitted). Absent this presump-

tion, the patentee may still establish a nexus by showing

that the proffered evidence of secondary considerations “is

the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the

claimed invention.’” Id. (citation omitted). We review the

weight given to evidence of secondary considerations for

substantial evidence. Id. at 1212–13 (“The weight to be

given to evidence of secondary considerations involves fac-

tual determinations, which we review only for substantial

evidence.”).

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 17 Filed: 06/05/2026

HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC 17

Ms. Hafeman suggests there was strong evidence of

various secondary considerations, including praise for the

commercial embodiment of the invention, the Retriever;

commercial success; and copying by others. And she asserts

various errors on appeal. First, Ms. Hafeman argues that

the Board erroneously found there was no nexus between

the Retriever and the claimed invention given that the pa-

tent specification repeatedly references the Retriever prod-

uct. Second, she argues that the Board denied a nexus

without providing any explanation. Neither of these argu-

ments are persuasive. The former argument is unavailing

because the nexus analysis compares the specific product

not to the patent’s specification but to the patent’s claims.

See id. at 1210 (explaining nexus can be shown when a spe-

cific product “embodies the claimed features” or when sec-

ondary consideration evidence is the “direct result of the

unique characteristics of the claimed invention” (emphasis

added) (citations omitted)). And the latter argu-

ment—made in a single sentence without any citation to

the underlying record—is borderline frivolous. The Board’s

analysis of secondary considerations is thorough and spans

several pages. The Board first recounts Ms. Hafeman’s fail-

ure to make any argument as to co-extensiveness, elimi-

nating the possibility of a presumption of nexus. Decision,

2024 WL 250494, at *12. And it then separately weighs the

remaining evidence to conclude that she failed to “prove a

nexus independently” of any such presumption. Id.; see id.

at *12–14. This is an adequate explanation of its rationale,

and its conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

Ms. Hafeman’s remaining arguments fare no better.

She argues that the Board was mistaken when it found

that praise for the Retriever was directed to non-patented

features, that the Board erred when it found that her

claims of commercial success were unsupported, and that

the Board erroneously rejected evidence of Google and Mi-

crosoft’s copying. As the Board noted, Ms. Hafeman’s evi-

dence of industry praise repeatedly highlighted the

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 18 Filed: 06/05/2026

18 HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC

unpatented features of the product, namely that the Re-

triever includes a verbal alarm component. See id.

at *12–13; see also J.A. 7729 (newspaper article entitled

“Talking software goes global” (emphasis added)). That

there may also be some praise for patented features is in-

sufficient under our standard of review to warrant rever-

sal. See Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197,

229 (1938) (substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support

a conclusion”); Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607,

620 (1966). Further, while Ms. Hafeman submitted evi-

dence of visitors to the product’s website and mentioned

pricing at oral argument, she made no argument to the

Board that connected this purported evidence of commer-

cial success to the merits of the invention. See Kansas Jack,

Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F.2d 1144, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (dis-

counting evidence of commercial success where there was

“no evidence of a nexus between sales and the merits of the

invention”). And Ms. Hafeman’s arguments to the Board

only briefly mentioned Google and Microsoft’s Find My De-

vice programs—she never stated that those programs were

evidence of copying. See J.A. 8208, 8306; see also Decision,

2024 WL 250494, at *13 (“Patent Owner does not explain

how Google’s and Microsoft’s Find My Device features are

evidence of non-obviousness of the ’122 patent claims.”).

Ms. Hafeman’s attempts to do so now are improper. See

Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir.

2023) (finding arguments forfeited when not raised below).

For the reasons above, we conclude that the Board’s

findings regarding the secondary considerations of non-ob-

viousness are supported by substantial evidence and af-

firm.

Case: 24-1600 Document: 87 Page: 19 Filed: 06/05/2026

HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC 19

III

We have considered Ms. Hafeman’s remaining argu-

ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-

sons, we dismiss-in-part and affirm-in-part.

DISMISSED-IN-PART, AFFIRMED-IN-PART

COSTS

Costs against appellant.