Go1 Pty, Ltd. v. Opensesame, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GO1 PTY, LTD.,
Appellant
v.
OPENSESAME, INC.,
Appellee
______________________
2024-1762
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-
01439.
______________________
Decided: May 28, 2026
______________________
ROBERT MANHAS , Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented
by BAS DE BLANK, Menlo Park, CA; ELIZABETH MOULTON,
San Francisco, CA.
WILLMORE F. HOLBROW , III, Buchalter LLP, Los Ange-
les, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by ROBERT
COLLINGS L ITTLE; J ASON WADE CROFT , CATHERINE MANESS ,
Salt Lake City, UT.
______________________
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 1 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 2
Before H UGHES , L INN, and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
STOLL , Circuit Judge.
GO1 Pty, Ltd. appeals the final written decision of the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board, determining that Go1 did
not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the chal-
lenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,784,113 are unpatenta-
ble under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the following reasons, we
vacate and remand the Board’s final written decision.
BACKGROUND
I
OpenSesame, Inc. is the owner of the ’113 patent, enti-
tled “Open and Interactive E-Learning System and
Method.” U.S. Patent No. 8,784,113 Title. The ’113 patent
“relates to on-line learning systems in which content is
readily publishable by a teacher and is readily accessible
by a student via platform-independent means” to produce
a nearly universal e-learning marketplace. Id. at col. 1
ll. 15–19. The Background of the Invention section of the
specification explains that “[l]earning management sys-
tems (LMSs) conventionally are closed learning systems by
which a corporation makes teaching content available on-
line to employees who are authorized to subscribe thereto.”
Id. at col. 1 ll. 23–26. The inventors here sought to provide
an open system in which content from various authors can
be stored and updated centrally, training managers could
pay the author and subscribe to particular content, and
then the licensed learners/users would be allowed access to
that content.
Only one aspect of the invention is at issue in this ap-
peal: the licensing/reporting server and its process for ver-
ifying a user’s license to access content. In particular, the
specification discloses a “licensing/reporting server 14
[that] provides authorization and licensing services.” Id.
at col. 4 ll. 37–38. The specification explains the
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 2 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 3
licensing/reporting server’s action when it receives a re-
quest for content access:
When an access request [by a user] is made, licens-
ing/reporting server 14 records the request, logging
which user and license . . . seeks access. Licens-
ing/reporting server 14 then compares those values
to its license store. If the requesting user is per-
mitted according to a favorable comparison, then
licensing/reporting server 14 returns in its re-
sponse a location designator, for example a uniform
resource locator (URL) . . . .
Id. at col. 4 ll. 42–50. The user can then go on to “play[] . . .
the e-learning course and/or content.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 56–
57.
The parties agree that claim 1 is representative.
Claim 1 recites:
1. An e-learning delivery system, comprising:
a licensing/reporting server;
a network-side content player operably coupled
with each of the licensing/reporting server and a
content delivery network comprising stored e-
learning content; and
a proxy comprising coded instructions stored on a
non-transitory computing device-readable medium
at the network-side, wherein the proxy instructions
identify a specific instance of licensed content, and
wherein the proxy instructions are configured
when executed on a client-side computing device to
enable a user to access and interact with the li-
censed content via a browser of the computing de-
vice and are further configured to report a status of
the user’s interaction with the content to one or
both of the licensing/reporting server and a learn-
ing management system (LMS);
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 3 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 3 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 4
wherein the licensing/reporting server includes
coded instructions configured when executed to
cause the licensing/reporting server to verify a va-
lidity status of the user license to the specific in-
stance of content, and upon verifying the validity of
the license, the instructions are further configured
to cause the licensing/reporting server to provide to
the proxy a location designator for accessing the
content player;
wherein the proxy instructions are further config-
ured, when executed on the client-side computing
device in response to a request for access to the spe-
cific instance of content, to:
cause the client-side computing device to re-
quest verification by the licensing/reporting
server of the validity status of a license to the
specific instance of content; and
cause the client-side computing device to in-
struct a browser to access the content player
via the location designator; and
wherein the proxy instructions are further config-
ured to relay information to a client-side Learning
Management System (LMS) including information
indicating a status of content played by the content
player.
Id. at col. 16 l. 48–col. 17 l. 19 (emphasis added).
Before the Board and on appeal, the parties agree that
the license verification and location designator limitation
(italicized above) sets forth two steps in sequence. First,
the claimed e-learning delivery system verifies the validity
of the license of the e-learning system user. See id.
at col. 16 ll. 65–67 (“[T]he licensing/reporting server . . .
verif[ies] a validity status of the user license to the specific
instance of content.”). Then, “upon verifying the validity of
the license,” the claimed e-learning delivery system
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 4 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 4 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 5
configures coded instructions “to cause the licensing/re-
porting server to provide to the proxy a location designator
for accessing the content player.” Id. at col. 17 ll. 1–4.
II
A
Go1 filed an inter partes review petition seeking review
of claims 1–16 of the ’113 patent. In the Petition, Go1 chal-
lenged the patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, relying on the combination of Sperle1 and Madison.2
Sperle is directed to “delivery methods for remote learning
system courses.” J.A. 1132. Sperle’s Figure 1 (reproduced
below) “illustrates an example environment for a learning
management system 140,” J.A. 1138 ¶ 11:
1 U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2007/0111180 A1.
2 U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2004/0015703 A1.
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 5 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 5 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 6
J.A. 1133. Sperle’s Figure 2 (reproduced below) “illus-
trates one example implementation of learning manage-
ment system (LMS) 140,” J.A. 1143 ¶ 28:
J.A. 1133. Sperle discloses that “[r]eporting functions 214
in training management enable managers to keep track of
learners’ learning activities.” J.A. 1144 ¶ 34.
Madison is entitled “System and Method for Control-
ling Access to Digital Content, Including Streaming Me-
dia.” J.A. 1150. In order to solve complications associated
with certain authentication methods for access to stream-
ing media, Madison discloses using a “web server [to] cryp-
tographically generate[] a ticket in response to an end
user’s request for access to a file.” J.A. 1159 ¶ 8. Im-
portantly to this appeal, Madison teaches a series of steps
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 6 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 6 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 7
in which a redirector file is generated and sent to an end
user before any access verification occurs. J.A. 1165 ¶ 81
(“The playlist server 610 then passes the ASX redirector
file to the media player at the end user process[or ] 602.”);
id. ¶ 83 (“Having received the ASX file, the end-user pro-
cessor 602 proceeds to request the streaming media con-
tent.”); id. ¶ 84 (“In response to the media player’s call, the
streaming media server 604 proceeds to determine
whether or not to grant the end-user access to the re-
quested content.”). Thus, while Madison discloses both
providing a location designator for access to content and
verifying that access, Madison discloses first providing the
location designator and then verifying.
In the Petition, Go1 “combine[d] Madison’s teaching of
authorization software that determines whether to grant
or deny access to specific content with Sperle’s teachings
regarding the reporting module,” J.A. 19, as demonstrated
by the following annotated figure from Go1’s Petition:
Id. (citing J.A. 95). Go1 argued that a skilled artisan would
have “integrated Madison’s web server with authorization
software and media server with similar authorization soft-
ware into the reporting module[ 214] of Sperle, obtaining a
licensing/reporting server as” in claim 1. J.A. 19 (citing
J.A. 93–95). As evidence of the unpatentability of the
’113 patent’s “verifying the validity of the license” limita-
tion, Go1 “relie[d] . . . on Madison’s teachings of a sequence
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 7 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 7 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 8
of steps in which a redirector file is sent to a user before the
streaming media server determines whether to deny or
grant access.” J.A. 24.
In its Patent Owner Response, OpenSesame contended
that the combination of Sperle and Madison did not satisfy
the limitation “upon verifying the validity of the license”
because in the combination, “verification of validity hap-
pens after generation of the redirector file.” J.A. 385.
Thus, according to OpenSesame, “the steps in Madison are
in reverse order as compared to the claim element which
requires that the validity be determined before the proxy
instructions are further configured to provide a location
designator.” Id. (citing J.A. 2934 ¶ 113).
In reply, Go1 argued that “a [skilled artisan] would not
require Madison to specify ‘proxy instructions’ that operate
in an identical manner to [the ‘upon verifying the validity
of the license’ limitation] to be motivated to combine the
disclosures of Sperle-Madison with a reasonable expecta-
tion of success in achieving the purported claimed inven-
tion.” J.A. 25 (quoting J.A. 431). In support, Go1 relied on
the testimony of its expert, Dr. Kevin Almeroth, who
opined:
90. . . . A [skilled artisan] would not require Madi-
son to specify “proxy instructions” that operate in
an identical manner to [the “wherein the proxy in-
structions are further configured” and “cause the
client-side computing device to request verifica-
tion” limitations] in order to be motivated to com-
bine the disclosures of Madison and Sperle with a
reasonable expectation of success in achieving the
purported invention of the claims. There is no
practical difference between the request for
streaming media content, in combination with an
authorization ticket that is provided back to the
network for verification; and “request[ing] verifica-
tion . . . of the validity status of a license to the
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 8 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 8 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 9
specific instance of content.” A [skilled artisan]
would view them as insubstantially different, if at
all, and would still be motivated to combine Sperle
and Madison. Indeed, [OpenSesame’s expert] con-
ceded that Madison did not teach away from this
limitation and, in my opinion, there is no reason
why the combination would not be an obvious de-
sign choice.
91. [OpenSesame] argues that “verification of va-
lidity happens after generation of the redirector
file. Thus, the steps in Madison are in reverse or-
der as compared to the claim element which re-
quires that the validity be determined before the
proxy instructions are further configured to pro-
vide a location designator.” Again, a [skilled arti-
san] would not require Madison to specify “proxy
instructions” that operate in an identical manner
to [the “upon verifying the validity of the license”
limitation] in order to be motivated to combine the
disclosures of Madison and Sperle with a reasona-
ble expectation of success in achieving the pur-
ported invention of the claims. Moreover, there is
no clear significance to the fact that the “steps in
Madison” are in “reverse order compared to the
claim element.” A [skilled artisan] would view
them as insubstantially different, if different at all,
and would still be motivated to combine Sperle and
Madison.
J.A. 1491–92 (Almeroth Reply Decl. ¶¶ 90–91) (third alter-
ation and second omission in original) (internal citations
omitted); see J.A. 431–32.
B
The Board concluded that Go1 did not meet its burden
to prove the challenged claims of the ’113 patent are un-
patentable. The Board, in conducting its analysis, as-
sumed, but did not decide, that the combination of Sperle
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 9 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 9 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 10
and Madison taught all the limitations of claim 1 of the
’113 patent other than the “upon verifying the validity of
the license, the instructions are further configured to cause
the licensing/reporting server to provide to the proxy a lo-
cation designator for accessing the content player” limita-
tion. See J.A. 17; Oral Arg. at 0:27–1:11, https://www.
cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/24-1762_03052026.mp3
(Go1 noting that “the Board made no findings on any other
limitation”).
The Board determined Go1 did not meet its burden on
the “upon verifying the validity of the license” limitation
because Madison does not disclose the proper sequence.
The Board found:
According to Madison, a redirector file is generated
first, sent back to the user, and then when the user
uses the redirector file to access the content, the
media server determines whether or not to grant
the end user access to the request. It is this last
step of determining whether to grant access that
[Go1] relies on for teaching the “verifying a validity
status of the user license” limitation of claim 1.
Thus, Madison does not disclose “upon verifying
the validity of the license,” causing a licensing
server “to provide to a proxy a location designator”
for accessing the content player.
J.A. 27 (internal citations omitted). The Board acknowl-
edged both (1) Go1’s argument that the specific sequence
disclosed by Madison “does not matter because the key in-
quiry under KSR [International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007),] is whether a person ordinarily skilled
in the art—‘a person of ordinary creativity, not an autom-
aton’—would have been motivated to combine the disclo-
sures in Sperle and Madison to achieve the claimed
invention,” J.A. 27 (citing J.A. 431); and (2) Go1’s accompa-
nying reliance on Dr. Almeroth’s declarations, J.A. 27–28
(citing J.A. 709 ¶ 136; J.A. 1491–92 ¶¶ 90–91). But the
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 10 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 10 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 11
Board concluded Dr. Almeroth’s testimony was “unsup-
ported[ and] conclusory” and could not “fill in gaps in the
prior art references.” J.A. 17. In particular, the Board con-
cluded “Dr. Almeroth’s testimony d[id] not persuasively
show why a [skilled artisan] . . . would have performed the
redirector file creation and authorization differently from
what Madison teaches.” J.A. 29. The Board faulted Dr. Al-
meroth’s testimony for neither “point[ing] to design consid-
erations at the time of the invention to show why the
differences between the art and claimed invention are ‘in-
substantially different’ or that the modification would
merely be a ‘design choice,’” nor “provid[ing] any technical
explanation for his generic conclusions.” Id. Accordingly,
the Board concluded Go1 did not “persuasively show that
the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over
the combination of Sperle and Madison.” J.A. 30.
Go1 appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
On appeal, Go1 asserts that the Board legally erred in
finding no motivation to modify Sperle and Madison such
that the combination would first verify the validity of the
license and then provide a URL for accessing content. In
particular, Go1 challenges the Board’s conclusion that
Dr. Almeroth’s testimony was conclusory. “We review the
Board’s obviousness determinations de novo and its factual
findings underlying those determinations for substantial
evidence.” Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc.,
160 F.4th 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (citation omitted).
“Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a rea-
sonable mind might accept as adequate to support a con-
clusion.’” Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, 882 F.3d 1132,
1133 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y.
v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). After review, we hold
that the Board’s finding that Dr. Almeroth’s testimony was
conclusory is not supported by substantial evidence.
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 11 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 11 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 12
Before the Board, Go1 sought to prove that the choice
of first verifying the license and then sending the proxy
URL (the sequence of claim 1 of the ’113 patent) was an ob-
vious design alternative to first sending the proxy URL and
then verifying the license (the sequence disclosed in Madi-
son), and such a design choice is within the skilled artisan’s
ordinary creativity under KSR. See J.A. 431; see also Ap-
pellant’s Br. 31. In other words, Go1 asserted that the or-
der of performance of these two recited claim steps was a
design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordi-
nary skill in the art. In KSR, the Supreme Court noted
that if a skilled artisan “can implement a predictable vari-
ation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” 550 U.S. at 417.
And “tak[ing] account of the inferences and creative steps
that a [skilled artisan] would employ,” “[w]hen there is a
design need . . . and there are a finite number of identified,
predictable solutions, a [skilled artisan] has good reason to
pursue the known options within his or her technical
grasp.” Id. at 418, 421.
Here, the relevant number of solutions is “finite” and
“predictable”: (1) verify the license and then send the
URL, or (2) send the URL and then verify the license. The
Board’s finding here did not consider that such a simple
design choice may be within the “ordinary creativity” and
“technical grasp” of a skilled artisan, thus giving the skilled
artisan “good reason” to pursue that design choice. Id.
at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordi-
nary creativity . . . .”); see also Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“In KSR, the Su-
preme Court criticized a rigid approach to determining ob-
viousness based on the disclosures of individual prior-art
references, with little recourse to the knowledge, creativity,
and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have brought to bear when considering combinations or
modifications.” (citation omitted)). The Board also did not
take into account that “[t]he amount of explanation needed
to meet” the obviousness standard “necessarily depends on
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 12 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 12 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 13
context.” Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d
987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In some contexts, where the
technology is “easily understandable,” a motivation to mod-
ify analysis “may include recourse to logic, judgment, and
common sense available to the [skilled artisan] that do not
necessarily require explication in any reference.” Perfect
Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); Meyer Intell. Props. Ltd.
v. Bodum, Inc., 690 F.3d 1354, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(concluding the district court erred in excluding the ex-
pert’s evidence when the technology at issue was “not com-
plex” and therefore the expert could “rel[y] on common
sense in rendering his obviousness opinion”).
Dr. Almeroth’s testimony explained that a skilled arti-
san would have viewed the sequencing difference between
Madison and the claimed invention as lacking technical
significance. He testified that a skilled artisan “would not
require Madison to specify ‘proxy instructions’ that operate
in an identical manner . . . in order to be motivated to com-
bine the disclosures of Madison and Sperle with a reasona-
ble expectation of success.” J.A. 1492 ¶ 91. Further, he
testified that “there is no clear significance to the fact that
the ‘steps in Madison’ are in ‘reverse order compared to the
claim element’” and that a skilled artisan “would view
them as insubstantially different, if different at all.” Id.
And OpenSesame points us to nothing in the record to
question that view. While Dr. Almeroth did not point to a
specific prior art reference in support of this statement, be-
cause of the simple nature of the difference between the
order of the steps in Madison and the order of steps in the
claim, as well as the unchallenged fact that it was gener-
ally known in other contexts to verify entitlement to access
prior to providing access, Dr. Almeroth did not need a spe-
cific reference. Instead, Dr. Almeroth grounded his opinion
in his understanding of how a skilled artisan would have
approached the sequencing issue based on his knowledge
as a skilled artisan himself. See J.A. 657–60 ¶¶ 45–47
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 13 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 13 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 14
(Dr. Almeroth detailing his knowledge of e-learning and ac-
cess control, including describing his research conducted
before the priority date of the ’113 patent); see J.A. 9–10
(Board determining level of ordinary skill).
Before us, OpenSesame urges us to adopt the Board’s
finding that Dr. Almeroth’s testimony was conclusory and
unsupported. See Appellee’s Br. 46. We note that
OpenSesame has not directly disputed Dr. Almeroth’s tes-
timony that the sequencing difference here would be insub-
stantial to a skilled artisan.3 OpenSesame only takes issue
that Dr. Almeroth “did not rely on or cite any evidence” in
support of that testimony. Appellee’s Br. 61. But the ab-
sence of a separate reference expressly teaching the
claimed sequencing does not, by itself, render the testi-
mony conclusory. As discussed above, Dr. Almeroth’s tes-
timony is not conclusory as it relied on the judgment and
creativity of the skilled artisan, on which he is qualified to
opine. Meyer, 690 F.3d at 1375–76. Accordingly, we hold
that the Board’s finding that Dr. Almeroth’s testimony was
conclusory is unsupported by substantial evidence.
CONCLUSION
We have considered OpenSesame’s remaining argu-
ments, and we find them unpersuasive. We vacate the
Board’s decision and remand the case to the Board for fur-
ther proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3 At oral argument, we asked OpenSesame if it had
put in evidence that a skilled artisan would not have
known to verify a license and then provide access.
OpenSesame pointed us to its Response to Go1’s Petition,
but upon review, we do not find an answer to our question.
See generally Oral Arg. at 15:50–19:00 (citing J.A. 384–89).
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 14 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 14 of 15 --

GO1 PTY , LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. 15
COSTS
Costs to Appellant.
Case: 24-1762 Document: 54 Page: 15 Filed: 05/28/2026

-- 15 of 15 --