Assa Abloy Ab, Assa Abloy Inc., Hid Global Corp., Assa Abloy Global Solutions, Inc.,… v. Cpc Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY INC., HID GLOBAL
CORP., ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
MASTER LOCK COMPANY LLC,
Appellants
v.
CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.,
Appellee
______________________
2025-1078, 2025-1079, 2025-1080
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2022-
01006, IPR2022-01045, IPR2022-01089.
______________________
Decided: July 15, 2026
______________________
L IONEL M. L AVENUE , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, argued for appellants.
Also represented by ATIYA SAFIYA A GUILAR, D AVID MROZ,
Washington, DC.
STEVEN M. COYLE , Cantor Colburn LLP, Hartford, CT,
argued for appellee. Also represented by N ICHOLAS
G EIGER.
Case: 25-1078 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 1 of 10 --

ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD. 2
______________________
Before REYNA, CHEN, and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
ASSA ABLOY AB (ASSA) appeals the final written de-
cisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) ruling
that ASSA failed to prove that the challenged claims1 of
U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705 (’705 patent) and U.S. Patent
No. 9,269,208 (’208 patent) are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103. ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Pat. Techs. Pty
Ltd., No. IPR2022-01006, 2024 WL 3799645 (P.T.A.B. Aug.
13, 2024) (FWD)2; ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Pat. Techs. Pty
Ltd., Nos. IPR2022-01045, IPR2022-01089, 2024 WL
3799652 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2024). Because ASSA has not
shown that the Board’s claim construction is incorrect, or
that the Board failed to address any of ASSA’s petitioned-
for unpatentability grounds, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’705 patent describes an authentication process in
which a user requests access to a controlled item through
1 The challenged claims refer to claims 1–17 of the
’705 patent and claims 1–13 of the ’208 patent. In separate
inter partes reviews brought by Apple (Apple IPRs), claims
1, 4, 6, 10–12 and 14–17 of the ’705 patent and claims 1, 3–
7, 9–11, and 13 of the ’208 patent were held unpatentable,
and this Court affirmed those decisions. See CPC Pat.
Techs. Pty Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2024-1278, 2024-1354,
2025 WL 2248796 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2025). Several chal-
lenged claims, however, remain valid.
2 We cite the ’705 patent and the Board’s FWD con-
cerning the ’705 patent, because the ’705 and ’208 patents
share the same specification and recite materially similar
claims, and because the Board’s analyses are likewise ma-
terially similar. See Appellant Br. 7 n.1.
Case: 25-1078 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 2 of 10 --

ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD. 3
“a biometric sensor.” ’705 patent col. 5 ll. 56–63. For ex-
ample, when the biometric sensor is a fingerprint sensor,
the user provides “a thumb press on a sensor panel.” Id.
col. 5 ll. 60–63. The system then compares the received
biometric signal (e.g., a fingerprint) against a database
containing biometric signatures for authorized users. Id.
col. 11 ll. 40–45; id. col. 12 ll. 15–16. If the received bio-
metric signal matches a biometric signature in the data-
base, the system grants the user access to the controlled
item. Id. col. 12 ll. 16–24.
The ’705 patent also describes an enrollment process,
in which an administrator enrolls a new user by
“provid[ing] control information.” Id. col. 10 ll. 56–60. An
example of such control information is when an adminis-
trator applies a series of finger presses, e.g., “dit, dit, dit,
dah, where “‘dit’ is a finger press of one second’s duration”
and “‘dah’ is a finger press of two second’s duration.” Id.
col. 11 ll. 3–7. However, “[i]n the event that a legitimate
sequence of finger presses [is] not delivered within the pre-
determined time, then the [finger] presses are considered
not to be control information and merely to be presses in-
tended to provide access to the controlled item.” Id. col. 11
ll. 9–13. That is, the system, under those circumstances,
does not consider those finger presses to be part of an en-
rollment process but instead considers the finger presses
as attempts at an authentication process.
Claim 1 of the ’705 patent is representative and recites
a system that performs both the authentication process
and the enrollment process:
1. A system for providing secure access to a con-
trolled item, the system comprising:
a memory comprising a database of biometric sig-
natures;
a transmitter sub-system comprising:
Case: 25-1078 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 3 of 10 --

ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD. 4
a biometric sensor configured to receive a bio-
metric signal;
a transmitter sub-system controller configured
to match the biometric signal against members
of the database of biometric signatures to
thereby output an accessibility attribute; and
a transmitter configured to emit a secure ac-
cess signal conveying information dependent
upon said accessibility attribute; and
a receiver sub-system comprising:
a receiver sub-system controller configured to:
receive the transmitted secure access signal;
and
provide conditional access to the controlled
item dependent upon said information;
wherein the transmitter sub-system controller is
further configured to:
[D(1)3] receive a series of entries of the bio-
metric signal, said series being characterised
according to at least one of the number of said
entries and a duration of each said entry;
[D(2)] map said series into an instruction; and
[D(3)] populate the data base according to the
instruction, wherein the controlled item is one
of: a locking mechanism of a physical access
structure or an electronic lock on an electronic
computing device.
3 The Board referred the enrollment process limita-
tions as limitations D(1), D(2), and D(3). See FWD, 2024
WL 3799645, at *43–45.
Case: 25-1078 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 4 of 10 --

ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD. 5
Id. col. 15 l. 62 – col. 16 l. 23 (emphases added).
ASSA filed three inter partes review (IPR) petitions,
one challenging the ’705 patent’s claims and two challeng-
ing the ’208 patent’s claims. J.A. 1007, 4742, 5944. In each
IPR, ASSA asserted the same obviousness ground based on
U.S. Patent No. 6,256,737 (Bianco) and WIPO Publication
No. 2002028067 (Mathiassen).4 J.A. 1016, 4750, 5951. The
Board instituted all three petitions. J.A. 4, 106.
The Board, in its initial FWD, construed “biometric sig-
nal” to mean “a physical or behavioral biometric attribute
that provides secure access to a controlled item.” J.A. 1818.
Based on that construction, the Board found the challenged
claims not unpatentable, because the asserted prior art did
not disclose limitations [D(1)]–[D(3)] (i.e., the enrollment
process limitations). J.A. 1831–37. ASSA sought Director
review, arguing that the Board erroneously added a func-
tional requirement for a biometric signal. J.A. 1846. The
Director vacated the Board’s construction and authorized
supplemental briefing on claim construction but did not
opine on the merits. J.A. 1861–63.
On remand, the Board revised its claim construction to
“a physical or behavioral biometric attribute” by removing
the functional requirement. FWD, 2024 WL 3799645, at
*1. It rejected ASSA’s proposed construction—“the input
and output of a biometric sensor”—as “too broad because it
allows for any type of input.” Id. at *34. The Board ex-
plained that “whatever form the biometric signal takes, it
must be matched with a coordinated biometric sensor;”
that is, “[i]f the ‘input’ to the biometric sensor is a series of
numbers or letters, for example, that input would not be
accepted by the sensor as a ‘biometric signal.’” Id. The
Board also noted that its construction was consistent with
4 Other grounds are not relevant to this appeal.
Case: 25-1078 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 5 of 10 --

ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD. 6
its prior construction in the Apple IPRs challenging claims
of the ’705 and ’208 patents. Id. at *1.
Under the revised claim construction, the Board
reached the same obviousness determination, finding that
the enrollment process limitations were not met. Id. at
*43–45. ASSA had relied on Mathiassen’s “multiple finger-
tap control system to send any of Bianco’s control signals,”
but the Board found that Mathiassen’s finger-taps “are
merely the touching of a touch-sensitive pad during which
no biometric measurement is taken at all.” Id. at *42, *44.
The Board emphasized that Mathiassen discloses a navi-
gation mode and an authentication mode, and the relied-
upon finger-taps occur in the navigation mode. Id. at *44–
45; see also Mathiassen col. 21 ll. 15–39. The Board con-
cluded that Mathiassen’s sensor in the touch-sensitive pad,
when in the navigation mode, does not receive “a series of
entries of the biometric signal” because the sensor “is no
longer functioning as a fingerprint sensor,” and thus not
reading a person’s fingerprint. Id. at *45.
ASSA timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
ASSA argues that (1) the Board’s construction of “bio-
metric signal” improperly excludes its patents’ only dis-
closed embodiment for enrolling new users and (2) the
Board failed to address its arguments that Bianco alone
disclosed or rendered obvious the enrollment process limi-
tations. Appellant Br. 29–30.
I
We begin with the claim construction issue. “We re-
view the issue of claim construction of a patent claim de
novo with any underlying fact findings reviewed for sub-
stantial evidence.” Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., 92 F.4th
1049, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citation omitted).
Case: 25-1078 Document: 38 Page: 6 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 6 of 10 --

ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD. 7
ASSA contends that the Board’s construction of “bio-
metric signal” excludes the only disclosed enrollment em-
bodiment, in which the administrator enters “dit, dit, dit,
dah” finger presses to enroll new users. Appellant Br. 35–
44. ASSA urges this Court to adopt its proposed construc-
tion: “the input and output of the biometric sensor.” Id. at
44–49. Such a broad construction would encompass inputs
to a biometric sensor in which the sensor does not read any
biometric information from the input.
The Board’s construction, “a physical or behavioral bi-
ometric attribute,” is correct. First, a plain reading of the
claim language indicates that “a series of entries of the bi-
ometric signal” refers to the earlier recited “a biometric sig-
nal” that is being “receive[d]” by “a biometric sensor” and
used “to match . . . against members of the database of bi-
ometric signatures.” ’705 patent at claim 1 (emphasis
added). Based on this claim language, the Board correctly
noted that the claimed “biometric signal” is “a signal that
can be received and processed by a biometric sensor and by
a transmitter subsystem, and also can be matched to a da-
tabase.” FWD, 2024 WL 3799645, at *33. That is, contrary
to ASSA’s proposal, the “biometric signal” cannot be merely
any input and output of a biometric sensor.
Second, the Board’s construction does not exclude the
enrollment embodiment disclosed in the specification. The
administrator’s “dit, dit, dit, dah” finger presses are bio-
metric attributes because the system reads the administra-
tor’s fingerprint from these finger presses. The
specification explains that if the series of finger presses is
not entered within the predetermined time, the system will
interpret those finger presses as “intended to provide ac-
cess to the controlled item.” ’705 patent col. 11 ll. 1–14.
That is, they are considered attempts to authenticate the
user through fingerprint reading. Id. col. 5 l. 54 – col. 6 l.
4. Accordingly, the disclosed system’s biometric sensor con-
tinues to read biometric information from the finger
presses during an attempted enrollment process, and the
Case: 25-1078 Document: 38 Page: 7 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 7 of 10 --

ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD. 8
Board’s biometric signal construction does not exclude the
enrollment embodiment.
ASSA provides no persuasive reason for its view that
the biometric sensor’s ability to read a fingerprint is effec-
tively turned off during the enrollment process. ASSA con-
tends this is so because “the administrator was already
authenticated before the control information was pro-
vided.” Appellant Reply Br. 3. But the specification does
not support this reading, and, as explained above, suggests
the opposite reading. See generally ’705 patent col. 11 ll.
1–14.5 ASSA’s additional argument that the system checks
Read Only Memory during an enrollment process rather
than a biometric database is irrelevant, because nothing in
the specification suggests that the biometric sensor ever
gets turned off, during either the authentication process or
the enrollment process. See Appellant Reply Br. 12; ’705
patent col. 12 ll. 15–16. More critically, ASSA does not
meaningful engage with the claim language “the biometric
signal,” which refers back to the previously-recited “bio-
metric signal” that is being read by the biometric sensor.
We reject ASSA’s view that “biometric signal” should have
a different meaning when recited in different parts of the
same claim. Appellant Br. 47. Therefore, we reject ASSA’s
claim construction arguments and adopt the Board’s con-
struction.6
5 In the Apple IPRs, the Board similarly noted that
a “fingerprint sensor’s ability to recognize a fingerprint is
not turned off when a succession of finger presses is applied
to the fingerprint sensor.” Apple Inc. v. CPC Pat. Techs.
Pty Ltd., No. IPR2022-00602, 2023 WL 6617490, at *15
(P.T.A.B. Sept. 27, 2023).
6 We need not address ASSA’s arguments regarding
the Board’s factual findings on Mathiassen, because ASSA
relies solely on an erroneous claim construction as the ba-
sis for those arguments. See Appellant Br. 38–44.
Case: 25-1078 Document: 38 Page: 8 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 8 of 10 --

ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD. 9
II
ASSA next argues that the Board failed to address its
Bianco arguments for enrollment process limitations. Ap-
pellant Br. 49. According to ASSA, it presented a Bianco-
only unpatentability ground, as a standalone unpatentabil-
ity theory, in its petitions and continued to pursue this the-
ory in its supplemental briefing. Id. at 49–54.
We are not persuaded. The Board’s decisions did not
address a Bianco ground because ASSA’s petitions did not
present one. See J.A. 1053–64 (the ’705 patent petition);
see J.A. 4787–801 (the ’208 patent petition). “It is of the
utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings
adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify
‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds
for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc.
v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). We also have ex-
plained that “[a] petitioner may not rely on a vague, ge-
neric, and/or meandering petition and later fault the Board
for failing to understand what the petition really meant.”
Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
2023).
Here, ASSA did not present an argument relying on
Bianco alone. Rather, ASSA’s consistent position was an
obviousness theory based on the Bianco-Mathiassen com-
bination. See J.A. 1053–64; J.A. 1566 (ASSA’s reply). In
particular, ASSA relied entirely on Mathiassen for limita-
tion [D(2)]. J.A. 1055 (“Looking toward the next limitation
D(2), Mathiassen expressly teaches using the number/du-
ration of the biometric entries”), 1059 (“Mapping the series
of biometric entries into an instruction is expressly taught
by Mathiassen”), 1061 (“Therefore, Mathiassen discloses
[D(2)]”). And the Board properly considered ASSA’s lim-
ited arguments relying on Bianco, in combination with Ma-
thiassen. See, e.g., FWD, 2024 WL 3799645, at *43 (noting
that Bianco’s signature is a biometric signal). ASSA raised
Case: 25-1078 Document: 38 Page: 9 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 9 of 10 --

ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD. 10
a Bianco-only ground for the first time in its supplemental
brief following Director review. See J.A. 1913. As such,
that argument was untimely. See, e.g., Corephotonics, Ltd.
v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[A]n IPR
petitioner may not raise in reply an entirely new rationale
for why a claim would have been obvious.”) (citation omit-
ted). Accordingly, we see no error in the Board’s obvious-
ness determination.
CONCLUSION
We have considered ASSA’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 25-1078 Document: 38 Page: 10 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 10 of 10 --