Lone Star Scm Systems, Ltd. v. Zebra Technologies Corporation

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LONE STAR SCM SYSTEMS, LTD.,
Appellant
v.
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
Appellee
______________________
2024-1731, 2024-1732, 2024-1733, 2024-1734
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade-
mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos.
IPR2022-01374, IPR2022-01375, IPR2022-01376,
IPR2022-01377.
______________________
Decided: December 12, 2025
______________________
S TEVEN N ELSON WILLIAMS , Munsch Hardt Kopf and
Harr PC, Dallas, TX, argued for appellant. Also repre-
sented by RANDALL MILLER; WINSTON O LIVER HUFF ,
Griffith Barbee PLLC, Dallas, TX.
J ULIE S. G OLDEMBERG, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellee. Also represented
by D ION MICHAEL B REGMAN, J ASON EVAN G ETTLEMAN,
Case: 24-1731 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 12/12/2025

-- 1 of 6 --

LONE STAR SCM SYSTEMS, LTD. v.
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
2
Palo Alto, CA; BRENT A. HAWKINS , San Francisco, CA
J AMES J OHN K RITSAS , Chicago, IL.
______________________
Before P ROST , T ARANTO, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ROST , Circuit Judge.
Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd. (“Lone Star”) appeals
from final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Ap-
peal Board (“Board”) in inter partes reviews (“IPR”) of
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,557,711 (“the ’711 patent”), 9,646,182
(“the ’182 patent”), 9,996,717 (“the ’717 patent”), and
10,482,293 (“the ’293 patent”) (collectively, “the chal-
lenged patents”). The Board concluded that all challenged
claims are unpatentable. For the reasons below, we
affirm.
BACKGROUND
The challenged patents are in the same family and
share the same specification. They generally relate to
interrogation systems to identify and track items “used in
a surgical procedure or in other environments that may
benefit from asset tracking.” ’711 patent col. 3 ll. 58–61.
Claim 1 of the ’711 patent recites:
1. An interrogation system, comprising:
a sensing subsystem configured to provide a sig-
nal having a signature representing a presence of
a radio frequency identification (RFID) object;
a control and processing subsystem configured to
discern a presence of said RFID object from said
signal; and
a single position sensor configured to provide a lo-
cation of said RFID object in accordance with a
movement of said position sensor with respect to
said RFID object.
Case: 24-1731 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 12/12/2025

-- 2 of 6 --

LONE STAR SCM SYSTEMS, LTD. v.
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
3
Id. at claim 1.
Zebra Technologies Corporation (“Zebra”) filed four
petitions for IPR of the challenged patents: IPR2022-
01374, IPR2022-01375, IPR2022-01376, and IPR2022-
01377. The Board determined all the challenged claims
unpatentable.
Lone Star timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
“We review de novo the Board’s ultimate claim con-
structions and any supporting determinations based on
intrinsic evidence. . . . We review any 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). Obviousness is
a question of law based on underlying findings of fact.
Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2017). “What a reference teaches and the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior
art are questions of fact which we review for substantial
evidence.” In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d
1268, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
On appeal, Lone Star raises five main arguments
challenging the Board’s determination that the challenged
claims are unpatentable. We address each argument in
turn.
First, Lone Star argues the Board failed to properly
construe the term “multiscan, coherent signal processing”
by improperly relying on new arguments raised for the
first time in Zebra’s IPR reply brief regarding “coherent.”
This argument is both unpersuasive and irrelevant. It is
unpersuasive because (1) Lone Star was given the oppor-
tunity to file sur-replies responding to those arguments,
and (2) moreover, in the sur-replies it filed, it never
objected to those arguments as untimely. Lone Star’s
Case: 24-1731 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 12/12/2025

-- 3 of 6 --

LONE STAR SCM SYSTEMS, LTD. v.
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
4
argument is irrelevant because the Board found that U.S.
Patent No. 7,151,979 (“Andersen”) “teaches multiscan,
coherent signal processing under either party’s definition
of the term.” J.A. 15. That finding is supported by sub-
stantial evidence: the Board relied on Andersen’s disclo-
sures, credited the testimony of Zebra’s expert, and
rejected Lone Star’s arguments. See, e.g., J.A. 39–42.
Second, Lone Star argues that the Board construed
the term “sensing subsystem configured to” for the ’711
patent but declined to construe the term for the ’717 and
’182 patents. Lone Star, however, fails to show how
further construction of the term would affect the Board’s
obviousness decision. For the ’717 patent, the Board
determined that “[it does] not adopt either part[y’s] pro-
posed construction . . . [and it] need go no further here to
resolve any disputed issues in this IPR regarding a ‘sens-
ing subsystem.’” J.A. 176. The Board then concluded
that the prior-art reference U.S. Patent No. 6,232,870
(“Garber”) discloses the term. J.A. 200. The Board made
a similar determination for the ’182 patent. See J.A. 81,
102. Lone Star does not argue or show that any further
construction of the term would have resulted in a differ-
ent outcome regarding the prior art’s disclosure.
Third, Lone Star argues that the Board improperly
construed the term “in close unobstructed proximity.” We
disagree. The Board construed “unobstructed” as “that
there is no structure located between the objects that
blocks signals from an object to the extent that the object
cannot be detected by the antenna of the interrogation
system.” J.A. 77. Lone Star contends that “unobstructed”
should instead mean “there is nothing between [the
objects] except for air.” Appellant’s Br. 31. We agree with
the Board’s construction. Figure 4 of the shared specifica-
tion illustrates that the interrogation systems can detect
objects in a patient’s body that are separated by tissues
and organs, not only air. See ’711 patent Fig. 4.
Case: 24-1731 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 12/12/2025

-- 4 of 6 --

LONE STAR SCM SYSTEMS, LTD. v.
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
5
Fourth, Lone Star argues that the Board failed to pro-
vide sufficient reasoning that claim 3 of the ’182 patent
and claim 3 of the ’717 patent are unpatentable for obvi-
ousness. We disagree. For the ’182 patent, the Board
explained that “[it does] not adopt [Zebra’s] proposed
construction requiring the ‘sensing subsystem’ to include
both RFID and metal sensing subsystems. . . . Therefore,
[it does] not agree with [Lone Star’s] position that Garber
fails to disclose the limitations of claim 3 because it lacks
a system with separate RFID and metal sensing subsys-
tems.” J.A. 101–02. The Board provided similar reason-
ing for the ’717 patent. See J.A. 199–200. Lone Star’s
argument, therefore, fails.
Lastly, Lone Star argues that contrary to the Board’s
findings, the prior-art reference International Publication
No. WO 01/06401 (“Werb”) does not disclose a “single
position sensor” as recited in claims 1 and 16 of the ’711
patent. Specifically, Lone Star argues that Werb discloses
multiple position sensors and not a single sensor. We
disagree with Lone Star. The Board first credited Zebra’s
expert that inertial position sensors were well known.
J.A. 25. The Board also recognized, based on the specifi-
cation, that such sensors were known and available at the
time of the invention. J.A. 26 n.5. The Board next found
that Werb discloses “various off-the-shelf technologies,
such as . . . inertial motion sensors, may be used by the
tag reader 3 . . . to estimate the position of the tag reader
3.” J.A. 27 (quoting J.A. 1606 at 13:29–31). The Board
concluded that Werb discloses a single position sensor.
J.A. 27. Substantial evidence, thus, supports the Board’s
finding.
Accordingly, we reject Lone Star’s challenge to the
Board’s determination that all the challenged claims are
unpatentable.
Case: 24-1731 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 12/12/2025

-- 5 of 6 --

LONE STAR SCM SYSTEMS, LTD. v.
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
6
CONCLUSION
We have considered Lone Star’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1731 Document: 44 Page: 6 Filed: 12/12/2025

-- 6 of 6 --