Vl Collective Ip, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
VL COLLECTIVE IP, LLC,
Appellant
v.
UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
Appellee
______________________
2024-1890
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-
01086.
______________________
Decided: February 20, 2026
______________________
BRIAN C. BARAN, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feld-
berg LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also rep-
resented by N AVEED S. HASAN, CHRISTINE E. LEHMAN;
JAIME F. CARDENAS-NAVIA , MICHAEL MATULEWICZ-
CROWLEY, New York, NY.
LAURA VU, Haynes and Boone, LLP, San Francisco, CA,
argued for appellee. Also represented by JONATHAN R.
BOWSER , ANGELA M. OLIVER, Washington, DC; DEBRA
JANECE MC COMAS, D AVID L. MCCOMBS, Dallas, TX;
Case: 24-1890 Document: 49 Page: 1 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 1 of 11 --

VL COLLECTIVE IP , LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 2
ROSHAN MANSINGHANI , JESSICA LEANN ANDERSEN MARKS,
Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD.
______________________
Before PROST, CHEN, and S TARK, Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
Appellant VideoLabs Collective IP, LLC (VideoLabs)
appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board’s) Fi-
nal Written Decision in No. IPR2022-01086 finding claims
1, 3, 5, 9, 12–13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,605,794 (’794
patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in view of Sonohara.1 Unified Pats., LLC v. VL Col-
lective IP LLC, No. IPR2022-01086, 2023 WL 8717013, at
*20 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2023) (Decision). VideoLabs chal-
lenges the Board’s claim construction, the Board’s allow-
ance of a first-time Reply argument, and the Board’s on the
merits finding that the claims are unpatentable. Because
we agree with the Board’s analysis, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’794 patent is directed to synchronizing data seg-
ments consisting of audio and visual content. The inven-
tion discloses synchronization of “content-related . . . data
segments” “by way of the predefinable assignment rule,”
which assigns a first data segment to a second data seg-
ment and enables the segments to be output chronologi-
cally. ’794 patent col. 2 ll. 36–43, 46–52.
Independent claim 1 is representative of the challenged
claims and recites:
A method for synchronizing content-related first
data segments of a first data file and content-
1 U.S. Patent No. 5,627,656. See J.A. 665.
Case: 24-1890 Document: 49 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 2 of 11 --

VL COLLECTIVE IP , LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 3
related second data segments of a second data file,
the method comprising:
sequentially outputting, by a device for
synchronizing content-related data, the
content-related first data segments and the
content-related second data segments ac-
cording to their chronological sequence in
such a way that each of the content-related
second data segments is output together
with an associated one of the content-re-
lated first data segments on the basis of an
assignment rule for assigning each one of
the content-related second data segments
to one of the content-related first data seg-
ments.
Id. at col. 7 ll. 45–57 (emphases added).
Dependent claims 20 and 21 include an additional lim-
itation to independent claims 1 and 9, respectively, that
“the assignment rule is not based on a timestamp.” Id. at
col. 9 ll. 1–4.
On June 7, 2022, Unified Patents, LLC (Unified) filed
a petition for inter partes review arguing that claims 1, 3,
5, 9, 12–13, 15, and 20–21 of the ’794 patent were unpatent-
able in view of Sonohara. J.A. 84–85.
Sonohara teaches a “motion picture reproducing appa-
ratus” which “synchronizes the image data and the sound
data” of a file. Sonohara, at Abstract. It discloses a com-
posite motion-picture file generated by combining an image
file and sound file. Id. at col. 4 ll. 12–20; see also id. FIG.
4. The composite file contains a header, an image “track”
of segmented image data, and a sound “track” of segmented
sound data. Id. at col. 1 ll. 51–58; see also id. FIG. 1. When
the image data and sound data are processed and given
track numbers, representing the order of the data within
the tracks, “the sound data and the image data are coupled
Case: 24-1890 Document: 49 Page: 3 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 3 of 11 --

VL COLLECTIVE IP , LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 4
with each other.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 45–48; id. at col. 6 ll. 40–
46.
The petition mapped Sonohara’s segmented image and
sound data in the composite file to the ’794 patent’s con-
tent-related first and second data segments. The petition
specified that the segments were “of a [first and] second
data file”—as required in claim 1’s preamble—because the
image and sound data in the composite file originated from
a separate image and sound file. J.A. 121.
On December 19, 2022, the Board instituted inter
partes review. J.A. 1046. At that time, the Board noted
that the petitioner had not submitted any claim construc-
tions beyond the plain and ordinary meanings of the claim
terms. Id. at 1054. Though VideoLabs had proposed cer-
tain constructions in its Preliminary Response, the Board
“[did] not find it necessary to construe any term.” Id. at
983, 1054.
In its Patent Owner Response, VideoLabs advocated
for a negative limitation of the term “assignment rule”
based on instances in the prosecution history where the ap-
plicant distinguished the ’794 patent from the prior art.
Decision, 2023 WL 8717013, at *8 (citing J.A. 1166–67).
Specifically, VideoLabs argued to the Board that the Appli-
cant had disclaimed “assignment rules in which the con-
tent-related data segments are assigned to one another
using exact timing information.” Id. Thus, VideoLabs pro-
posed that “assignment rule” should be construed as “as-
signment rule for assigning each one of the content-related
second data segments to one of the content-related first
data segments, where in the assignment is not performed
by using exact timing information for the content-related
data segments.” Id. (emphasis in original).
VideoLabs also proposed that claim 1’s “content-re-
lated . . . data segments” term be construed as “data seg-
ments ordered in a file such that they will present the file’s
contents in their intended presentation order when
Case: 24-1890 Document: 49 Page: 4 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 4 of 11 --

VL COLLECTIVE IP , LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 5
rendered sequentially.” Id. at *7 (citing J.A. 1148). Accord-
ing to VideoLabs, the ’794 patent inventors had acted as
their own lexicographer by defining this claim term in the
specification. Id. (quoting ’794 patent col. 4 ll. 14–17 (“The
term ‘content-related’ is understood to mean that first and
second data segments have a syntactical meaning within
the respective data file.”)). But instead of copying the as-
serted definition in the specification, VideoLabs’s proposed
construction reflected its own understanding of “syntacti-
cal meaning.” Id.
In the Petitioner’s Reply, in addition to arguing that
VideoLabs’s constructions were incorrect, Unified also ar-
gued, in the alternative, that Sonohara nevertheless dis-
closes the “syntactical meaning” of the “content-
related . . . data segments.” See J.A. 1500–03. According
to Unified, Sonohara’s composite file—containing image
and sound data segments mapped to the ’794 patent’s “con-
tent-related . . . data segments”—has syntax information
(i.e., header and track identification numbers). J.A. 1500.
Unified further noted that the composite file is assigned
those syntaxes during the file production process which
creates the composite file from the two originating files. Id.
Thus, the originating image and sound files likewise have
syntactical meaning. Id.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board declined to
construe the term “assignment rule,” but adopted the defi-
nition in the ’794 specification to construe “content-re-
lated . . . data segments. Decision, 2023 WL 8717013, *7–
9. The Board then mapped Sonohara’s segmented image
and sound data to the as-construed “content-re-
lated . . . data segments” and held that Unified had shown
that Sonohara anticipated claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12–13, and 15.
Id. at *16–17, *20. In holding dependent claims 20 and 21
were not shown to be unpatentable, the Board determined
that Sonohara’s “assignment rule” was “based on” two dif-
ferent timestamps. Id. at *19.
Case: 24-1890 Document: 49 Page: 5 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 5 of 11 --

VL COLLECTIVE IP , LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 6
After VideoLabs’s request for rehearing to the Board
was denied, VideoLabs appealed. See J.A. 51. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C.
§ 141(c).
S TANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the Board’s decisions under the standards
in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706.
We review “the Board’s compliance with the procedural re-
quirements of the [APA] de novo.” Axonics, Inc. v. Med-
tronic, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023). “We
review the [Board’s] factual determinations for substantial
evidence and its legal determinations de novo.” In re Nuva-
sive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Substantial
evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at
1380 (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289,
1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
D ISCUSSION
I. Assignment Rule
In declining to construe the term “assignment rule”
with a negative limitation, the Board noted that disavowal
must be “clear and unmistakable.” See Decision, 2023 WL
8717013, at *8 (citing Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek
Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). The Board
determined that the standard for prosecution disclaimer
had not been met.
Though VideoLabs proposed a negative limitation fo-
cused on assignment rules using “exact timing infor-
mation,” the Board indicated that the phrase was “used
nowhere in the prosecution history.” Id. at *9. Instead, the
Board agreed with Unified that the prosecution history was
“more fairly characterized as ‘the applicant argu[ing] that
Case: 24-1890 Document: 49 Page: 6 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 6 of 11 --

VL COLLECTIVE IP , LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 7
claim 1 was distinguishable over Shin2 [] and Rosenau3 []
because these references consider time information for syn-
chronization, rather than using an assignment rule for syn-
chronization.’” Id. (first alteration in original). Thus, the
Board declined to add the negative limitation and exclude
assignment rules using “exact timing information.” Id. at
*10.
Before this Court, VideoLabs argues for the first time
that the Board’s construction of “assignment rule” was in
error due to its inclusion of “techniques using timestamps.”
Appellant Br. 42.
This argument is forfeited. It is well-established that
“a party may not introduce new claim construction argu-
ments on appeal or alter the scope of the claim construction
positions it took below.” Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Env’t
Int’l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing
Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d
1323, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). VideoLabs acknowledged
below that a negative limitation disclaiming only
“timestamps” is a substantively different claim construc-
tion position than it took before the Board. See J.A. 2197–
98 (explaining “[e]xact timing information is broader than
time stamps”).
But “a position not presented in the tribunal under re-
view will not be considered on appeal in the absence of ex-
ceptional circumstances.” In re Google Tech. Holdings
LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020). VideoLabs has
not raised any exceptional circumstances that would war-
rant considering its new argument, and we thus decline to
consider it.
2 European Patent No. 1494430.
3 U.S. Patent No. 5,598,352.
Case: 24-1890 Document: 49 Page: 7 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 7 of 11 --

VL COLLECTIVE IP , LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 8
II. “Content-Related . . . Data Segments”
The Board construed the term “content-re-
lated . . . data segments” as “segments that have a syntac-
tical meaning within the respective data file,” in
accordance with the specification’s definition. Decision,
2023 WL 8717013, at *7–8; see ’794 patent col. 4 ll. 14–17.
The Board, however, rejected VideoLabs’s construction to
the extent that it added “additional gloss.” Id. at *7. In the
Board’s view, it was apparent that the ’794 applicant
“chose to limit its definition of ‘content-related’ in terms of
the broader phase ‘syntactical meaning’ rather than
through narrower specific reference to presentation order.”
Id. at *8.
On appeal, VideoLabs does not meaningfully dispute
the Board’s construction, but argues the Board erred by
(1) considering Unified’s argument, raised for the first time
in its Reply, that Sonohara discloses the “syntactical mean-
ing” portion of the construction for “content-re-
lated . . . data segments,” and (2) determining that
Sonohara disclosed “content-related . . . data segments” as
construed. Appellant Br. 27–41. We address each in turn.
A. “Syntactical Meaning” Reply Argument
In its Board rehearing request, VideoLabs contended
that the Board impermissibly allowed Unified to address
“syntactical meaning” in the Petitioner’s Reply when Uni-
fied’s Petition made no such argument. J.A. 52. The Board
disagreed. Citing Axonics, the Board determined that once
the Patent Owner proposed a new construction for the “con-
tent-related . . . data segments” in its Patent Owner Re-
sponse, the Petitioner had the right to respond to the
construction in its Reply, including whether Sonohara dis-
closes “content-related . . . data segments” with syntactical
meaning in its data file. Id. at 53–54.
Before this Court, VideoLabs argues that this case does
not fall within the Axonics rule, because Unified did not
Case: 24-1890 Document: 49 Page: 8 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 8 of 11 --

VL COLLECTIVE IP , LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 9
address the “content-related” requirement in the petition,
“under any construction.” Appellant Br. 32. According to
VideoLabs, Unified’s petition lacked discussion of how the
segments identified in Sonohara have “syntactical mean-
ing”—a “content-related . . . data segment” requirement—
a failure of proof which should have barred Unified from
“fill[ing] the gap” in Reply. Id. at 30.
We agree with the Board that Axonics applies. When
VideoLabs raised its claim construction argument after the
Institution stage in which the Board declined to construe
the term “content-related . . . data segments,” Unified was
entitled to an opportunity to respond. See Axonics, 75 F.4th
at 1383. Unified’s discussion of “syntactical meaning”
within Sonohara relied on the same (only) embodiment in
the patent, see Sonohara col. 3 ll. 48–49 (“An embodiment
of the invention will now be described with reference to the
accompanying drawings.”), and relied upon portions of Uni-
fied’s argument in the petition. Compare J.A. 1500 (dis-
cussing in Petitioner’s Reply that “syntactical meaning” is
assigned to the composite file during the file production
process), with J.A. 122–23 (discussing in Petition that the
originating image and sound file undergo file production
processing to form the composite file).
VideoLabs’s arguments that Unified should have
“clearly anticipated”4 the construction of “content-re-
lated . . . data segments” based on the patent’s specifica-
tion and therefore should have presented argument in the
Petition under that construction is one the Axonics decision
does not endorse. See Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1383 n.10 (stat-
ing that there is “no support” for a rule which draws a line
between claim constructions that could be “clearly
4 This argument is also weakened by VideoLabs’s
proposed claim construction in the Patent Owner’s Re-
sponse which differed from the one in the specification. See
Decision, 2023 WL 8717013, at *7.
Case: 24-1890 Document: 49 Page: 9 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 9 of 11 --

VL COLLECTIVE IP , LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 10
anticipated” and those that are not). Thus, the Board’s de-
cision to review Unified’s mapping of Sonohara’s “image
data” and “sound data” to the ’794 patent’s “content-re-
lated . . . data segments” was in accordance with its obliga-
tions under the APA.
B. Merits Argument
The Board found that one could infer syntactical mean-
ing in Sonohara’s originating files (i.e., the claimed “first
data file” and “second data file”), because the composite
file, containing header and track information (i.e., “syntac-
tical meaning”), was formed from the originating image
and sound files. Decision, 2023 WL 8717013, at *17. In the
order denying rehearing, the Board further explained the
originating files had syntactical meaning “because the files
have an order of data according to a chronological se-
quence, and that this syntactical meaning is imparted by
the data and track identifiers to the file containing the im-
age data segments and sound data segments.” J.A. 55.
VideoLabs’s final argument disputes the Board’s deter-
mination, on the merits, that Sonohara discloses “content-
related . . . data segments” as construed. VideoLabs ar-
gues that the Board erred because it inferred “syntactical
meaning” in Sonohara’s originating image file and sound
file, even though the file production process creates a sepa-
rate composite file with header and track information. Ap-
pellant Br. 36. According to VideoLabs, it is the composite
file alone which contains “syntactical meaning,” and there
is no “syntactical meaning within the [originating] data
file.” Id. at 36, 38–41 (emphasis added).
The Board’s findings are supported by substantial evi-
dence. Unified’s expert explained the “syntactical mean-
ing” in the original image and sound files is the same as
the “syntactical meaning” in the composite file, because the
composite file “is created from image and sound portions”
of the original files during the file production process. J.A.
1558 ¶ 55; J.A. 1554–57 ¶¶ 52–54. Unified’s expert further
Case: 24-1890 Document: 49 Page: 10 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 10 of 11 --

VL COLLECTIVE IP , LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 11
explained that the composite file includes “syntax infor-
mation including header information with track and data
identifiers identifying the relationship between the image
and audio portions” of the file. Decision, 2023 WL 8717013,
at *17 (citing J.A. 1554–58 ¶¶ 52–55). The Board reasona-
bly relied upon this testimony from Unified’s expert to sup-
port its finding that a skilled artisan would infer
“syntactical meaning” in the originating files after review-
ing the file production process and header and track infor-
mation in the composite file. Id.; see also J.A. 55–59. Thus,
we affirm the Board’s analysis.
CONCLUSION
We have considered the remainder of VideoLabs’s ar-
guments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing
reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1890 Document: 49 Page: 11 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 11 of 11 --