Case: 19-2035 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 06/16/2020
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`RIOT GAMES, INC., VALVE CORPORATION,
`Appellees
`______________________
`
`2019-2035, 2019-2036, 2019-2037, 2019-2038
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-
`00129, IPR2018-00130, IPR2018-00131, IPR2018-00132,
`IPR2018-01238,
`IPR2018-01241,
`IPR2018-01242,
`IPR2018-01243.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: June 16, 2020
`______________________
`
`DOUGLAS R. WILSON, Armond Wilson LLP, Austin, TX,
`for appellant. Also represented by MICHELLE ARMOND,
`Newport Beach, CA.
`
` CONSTANTINE L. TRELA, JR., Sidley Austin LLP, Chi-
`cago, IL, for appellee Riot Games, Inc. Also represented by
`NATHANIEL C. LOVE, JOHN WEATHERBY MCBRIDE; SCOTT
`BORDER, SAMUEL DILLON, Washington, DC.
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2035 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 06/16/2020
`
`2
`
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC. v. RIOT GAMES, INC.
`
`
` SHARON A. ISRAEL, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Hou-
`ston, TX, for appellee Valve Corporation. Also represented
`by KYLE E. FRIESEN; PATRICK A. LUJIN, Kansas City, MO;
`REYNALDO BARCELO, Barcelo, Harrison & Walker, LLP,
`Newport Beach, CA.
` ______________________
`
`Before PROST, Chief Judge, MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`PROST, Chief Judge.
`PalTalk Holdings, Inc., appeals four final written deci-
`sions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in
`inter partes review proceedings related to U.S. Patent
`Nos. 5,822,523 and 6,226,686. The Board concluded that
`all
`challenged
`claims
`are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the cited prior art. See Riot
`Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2018-00129,
`Paper 37, at 66 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2019); Riot Games, Inc.
`v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2018-00130, Paper 37, at
`72 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2019); Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk
`Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2018-00131, Paper 37, at 50
`(P.T.A.B. May 14, 2019); Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Hold-
`ings, Inc., No. IPR2018-00132, Paper 36, at 66 (P.T.A.B.
`May 14, 2019).1
`PalTalk timely appealed. PalTalk challenges the
`Board’s obviousness determination only with respect to
`certain dependent claims. We have jurisdiction under
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
`
`
`1 During the course of the inter partes review pro-
`ceedings, the Board joined petitioner Valve Corp. and its
`instituted inter partes reviews (respectively Case Nos.
`IPR2018-01238,
`IPR2018-1241,
`IPR2018-01242, and
`IPR2018-01243) to each of the four proceedings.
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2035 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 06/16/2020
`
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC. v. RIOT GAMES, INC.
`
`3
`
`We review the Board’s ultimate legal conclusion of ob-
`viousness de novo and its underlying factual determina-
`tions for substantial evidence. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d
`1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Substantial evidence is some-
`thing less than the weight of the evidence but more than a
`mere scintilla of evidence.” In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d
`1376, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`PalTalk appeals the Board’s obviousness determina-
`tion with respect to two subsets of dependent claims. First,
`PalTalk argues that substantial evidence does not support
`the Board’s conclusion that the prior art renders obvious
`certain dependent claims requiring a group messaging
`“server.” Specifically, dependent claims 4–5, 34–37, and
`41–42 of the ’523 patent require a host computer send a
`message to the group messaging server to “create,” “join,”
`or “leave” a message group. And dependent claims 30, 34,
`35, 49, 53, 54, 66, and 70 of the ’686 patent require that a
`server receives a message to “connect,” “disconnect,” or
`“close” a message group. We disagree with PalTalk. Sub-
`stantial evidence, including expert testimony and express
`disclosures in the prior art, supports the Board’s conclusion
`that the claimed “server” is disclosed and that the claims
`are rendered obvious.
`Second, PalTalk argues that substantial evidence does
`not support the Board’s conclusion that the prior art ren-
`ders obvious dependent claim 11 of the ’523 patent and de-
`pendent claims 22, 41, and 58 of the ’686 patent. Each of
`these claims recites a limitation requiring that the group
`messaging server perform “echo suppression,” which en-
`sures that a host does not receive copies of the messages it
`is sent. PalTalk contends that substantial evidence does
`not support the Board’s conclusion that the prior art dis-
`closes the “echo suppression” limitation. We disagree with
`PalTalk. Substantial evidence, including express disclo-
`sures in the prior art, supports the Board’s conclusion that
`the claimed “echo suppression” is disclosed and that the
`claims are rendered obvious. We further disagree with
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2035 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 06/16/2020
`
`4
`
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC. v. RIOT GAMES, INC.
`
`PalTalk to the extent it additionally argues the Board le-
`gally erred by failing to provide sufficient findings to sup-
`port
`its obviousness determination
`for
`the
`“echo
`suppression” claims. The Board’s analysis provides a re-
`viewable pathway to its conclusion by reasonably consider-
`ing the arguments raised by both parties and citing support
`from the prior art. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata
`Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We may
`affirm an agency ruling if we may reasonably discern that
`it followed a proper path, even if that path is less than per-
`fectly clear.”).
`Because we conclude that the Board’s obviousness de-
`termination is supported by substantial evidence and be-
`cause we detect no legal error in the Board’s analysis, we
`affirm.
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`