Nielsen Company (Us), LLC v. Tvision Insights, Inc.

Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 08/14/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ THE NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC, Appellant v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC., Appellee ______________________ 2025-1371 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2023- 01014. ______________________ Decided: August 14, 2026 ______________________ CLIFFORD T. BRAZEN, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS, argued for appellant. Also represented by JENNIFER C. BAILEY. CHRISTOPHER SCOTT PONDER, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by HARPER BATTS, JEFFREY LIANG. ______________________ Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 08/14/2026 2 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. DYK and REYNA, Circuit Judges, and BISSOON, Chief District Judge. 1 DYK, Circuit Judge. TVision Insights, Inc. (“TVision”) petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,470,243 (“’243 patent”), owned by The Nielsen Company (US), LLC (“Nielsen”). TVision relied on a publication authored by Ying-li Tian (“Tian”) as a prior-art reference. The Patent Trial and Ap- peal Board (“Board”) determined each challenged claim to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over prior art combinations that included Tian. Nielsen ap- peals, arguing that the Board erred in concluding that Tian was analogous art and in finding that Tian’s teachings ren- dered obvious the disputed claims. We affirm. BACKGROUND The ’243 patent, titled “Methods and Apparatus to Capture Images,” “relates generally to audience measure- ment and, more particularly, to methods and apparatus to capture images.” ’243 patent title, col. 1 ll. 37–39. The specification discloses embodiments that include an “audi- ence measurement device for measuring and/or identifying an audience of [a] media presentation device” such as a tel- evision. Id. at col. 4 ll. 54–56 (reference numbers omitted). The patent discloses an “example audience measurement device” that uses a camera to capture images of an audi- ence while identifying the media content being shown to the audience members. Images may be processed by a “people counter” that counts audience members by the presence of human features such as heads and faces. Id. at col. 5 l. 47–col. 6 l. 2. The patent discloses that the peo- ple counter may use low-resolution images. Images may 1 Honorable Cathy Bissoon, Chief District Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 08/14/2026 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. 3 also be processed by a “person identifier” that compares de- tected faces with facial signatures to identify audience members. Id. at col. 6 ll. 3–44. According to the patent, the person identifier requires high-resolution images. Nielsen recognizes that “[a]t the time of the invention, it was common for audience measurement systems to employ facial recognition to identify the people watching the pro- gram” and contends that the alleged invention is directed to using unilluminated low-resolution images to determine whether audience members were positioned suitably and using illuminated high-resolution images to perform facial recognition. Appellant’s Br. 2–4. TVision filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’243 patent, challenging the patentability of fourteen claims. Nielsen disclaimed the three challenged independ- ent claims in its Patent Owner Preliminary Response, and the Board instituted review of dependent claims 4–6, 8, 11– 14, and 18–20 (the “challenged claims”). Claims 4–6 are the focus of this appeal. 2 Claim 4 of the ’243 patent recites an “audience measurement system to obtain exposure data for a media exposure environment” comprising “processor circuitry to execute . . . machine readable instructions” to “reduce a resolution of a first image of the one or more of the images of the media exposure environment to obtain a reduced-resolution image, and determine the orientation of 2 Each challenged claim recites limitations similar to claim 4, requiring “reduc[ing] a resolution of a first image” and “determin[ing] the orientation of the head . . . based on the reduced-resolution image.” ’243 patent claim 4; see id. claims 5–6, 8, 11–14, 18–20. On appeal, Nielsen does not provide independent argument for claims 8, 11–14, and 18–20, but appears to challenge the Board’s unpatentabil- ity determination of all claims based on the common reso- lution-reducing limitations of claim 4. Claims 5 and 6 include other limitations. Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 08/14/2026 4 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. the head with respect to the camera based on the reduced- resolution image.” ’243 patent claims 1, 4. Claims 5 and 6, which depend from claim 4, also recite “(i) generating a fa- cial signature from a region of a second image of the one or more of the images corresponding to a location of the head in the reduced-resolution image, and (ii) comparing the generated facial signature to a database of facial signa- tures.” Id. claims 5, 6. Before the Board, TVision asserted two grounds of un- patentability, arguing that the challenged claims were ob- vious over various prior-art references in view of Tian. In the first ground of the petition, TVision relied on U.S. Pa- tent Application Publication No. 2002/0059577 to Lu et al., published May 16, 2002 (“Lu”), in combination with Tian. In the second ground, TVision relied on U.S. Patent Appli- cation Publication No. 2010/0274372 to Nielsen et al., pub- lished October 28, 2010 (“Nielsen-372”), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0066822 to Steinberg et al., published March 18, 2010 (“Steinberg”), in combination with Tian. Tian is a scientific publication titled “Evaluation of Face Resolution for Expression Analysis.” Tian disclosed experimental results evaluating the performance of facial expression analysis steps using images of faces at “lower resolution” that “are down-sampled from the originals.” J.A. 955. In its petition, TVision asserted that “Tian is in the same field of endeavor as the ’243 patent, which is me- dia analysis.” J.A. 225. 3 In its response, Nielsen disputed that Tian was analogous art, arguing that Tian was neither in the same field of endeavor nor reasonably pertinent to the ’243 patent. 3 Citations to “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties. Dkt. No. 18. Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 5 Filed: 08/14/2026 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. 5 On January 6, 2025, the Board issued a final written decision, concluding that Tian was reasonably pertinent analogous art to the ’243 patent (without reaching the field-of-endeavor prong) and finding all challenged claims to be unpatentable on both obviousness grounds. Nielsen timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). DISCUSSION I Nielsen first argues that the Board erred in considering Tian because, contrary to the Board, Tian was not analo- gous art to the ’243 patent. A Two tests define the scope of analogous art: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor” and “(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably perti- nent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The Board’s determination that a prior art refer- ence is analogous art presents an issue of fact, reviewed for substantial evidence.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Nielsen first contends that the Board violated the Ad- ministrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in concluding that Tian was reasonably pertinent because the petition argued only that Tian was in the same field of endeavor as the ’243 pa- tent, not that Tian’s teachings were reasonably pertinent. According to Nielsen, it had no notice or opportunity to re- spond to the reasonably pertinent theory. “A patent owner in [an IPR] is undoubtedly entitled to notice of and a fair opportunity to meet the grounds of rejection” under the APA. Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., 6 F.4th 1256, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 6 Filed: 08/14/2026 6 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. We see no error in the Board’s addressing the question of reasonable pertinence, and the requirements of the APA were satisfied for three independent reasons. First, while the same-field and reasonably pertinent theories are “separate tests,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, we have cautioned against an “unduly rigid view of the analo- gous art framework” and explained that “the evidence and analysis relating to the field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent prongs may overlap.” Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Relevant to both prongs, TVision’s expert, Dr. Doermann, opined that Tian disclosed “analyzing images for head detection and pose es- timation.” J.A. 688 ¶ 36. As in Netflix, the reasonably per- tinent prong overlaps with the field-of-endeavor prong in this case, and the same evidence was germane to both prongs. See Netflix, 80 F.4th at 1360. There is also no requirement for a petitioner’s analo- gous-art theory to be made expressly; such a theory may be implicit in the petition. Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[T]he pertinence of the prior art to the problem solved by the invention may be implicit in the petition’s discussion of the challenged claims and why a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the prior art references with a reasonable expec- tation of success.”). “[T]he Board may make its own finding as to the field of endeavor or problem confronted by the in- ventors—when those issues are in dispute—even if its find- ing differs from the positions argued for by the parties.” Id. at 1011. The reasonably pertinent prong was implicit in the petition. TVision argued that Tian and the ’243 patent belonged to the same field of endeavor because Tian teaches “analyzing images for head detection and pose es- timation.” J.A. 688 ¶ 36. We conclude that Nielsen was on notice that the reasonably pertinent prong was also in play. Second, Nielsen was not deprived of the opportunity to address reasonable pertinence. It responded to TVision’s Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 7 Filed: 08/14/2026 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. 7 analogous-art argument in the Patent Owner’s Response by addressing both the field-of-endeavor and reasonably pertinent prongs. J.A. 2058–61. Finally, “[t]he judicial review provision of the APA in- cludes a harmless error rule.” ZyXEL Commc’ns Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, 107 F.4th 1368, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010)); see 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (“[D]ue account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.”). Nielsen concedes that it does not identify any evidence or argu- ments that it was deprived of the opportunity to present had it been more explicitly put on notice that the Board would consider the reasonably pertinent prong. Oral Arg. at 1:21–28. Because Nielsen has not established prejudice, any error was harmless. We conclude that the Board did not violate the APA. B Nielsen also disputes the merits of the Board’s conclu- sion that Tian was reasonably pertinent analogous art to the ’243 patent. “Whether a prior art reference qualifies as analogous prior art is a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence.” Netflix, 80 F.4th at 1358 (citing Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324). “A reference is reasonably perti- nent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have com- mended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[T]he reasonably pertinent inquiry may consider where an ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably look, and what that person would reasonably search for, in seeking to ad- dress the problem confronted by the inventor.” Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 8 Filed: 08/14/2026 8 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. The question is whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination of the problem identified in the ’243 patent. The Board determined that the ’243 patent was “directed to problems in image processing and, partic- ularly, to problems in facial detection and analysis.” J.A. 23. Nielsen disagrees, arguing the ’243 patent pro- vided an “express definition of the problems facing its in- ventor.” Appellant’s Br. 40. According to Nielsen, the expressly defined problems were the “[f]requent activation of the illumination sources,” which causes “significant power drain,” “shortens [the] lifetime of the illumination source,” causes a “significant amount of heat generat[ion],” and “annoy[s] people” in the audience. ’243 patent col. 3 ll. 4–16. Nielsen also urges that the problems confronting the inventor are limited to those expressly referenced in the patent specification, and that the Board’s analysis must be “tethered to” what “the challenged patent identi- fies [as] the problems facing the inventor.” Appellant’s Br. 38–39. The problems confronting an inventor are not limited to those expressly identified in a patent, and a patent may be directed to multiple problems. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Te- leflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (“[T]he problem moti- vating the patentee may be only one of many addressed by the patent’s subject matter.”); Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (identifying the relevant question to be “whether [a prior art reference] is reasonably pertinent to one or more of the particular problems to which the [challenged] patent re- lates” (emphasis added)). A patent may address explicitly identified specific problems while also addressing general problems. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Ent., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, though the specification identifies certain drawbacks to the overuse of a light source, ’243 patent col. 3 ll. 4–16, the Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 9 Filed: 08/14/2026 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. 9 challenged claims address broader problems and do not re- cite a light source. 4 It would be inappropriate to limit the relevant problem to reducing light-source use when the claims themselves are not limited to the presence of a light source and are far broader than responding to the light- source problems Nielsen identifies. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 (“In determining whether the subject matter of a pa- tent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim.”). In any event, the Board did not need to look beyond the patent itself. There is ample support for the Board’s iden- tification of “problems in image processing, and, particu- larly, . . . problems in facial detection and analysis.” J.A. 23. Each claim recites the analysis of camera images. E.g., ’243 patent claim 1 (reciting processor circuitry exe- cuting instructions to “analyze a sequence of images of the media exposure environment”). The title of the patent is “Methods and Apparatus to Capture Images.” Id. at title. The background section of the specification discusses how “some measurement systems capture a series of images” and “identify people in the images” using “facial recogni- tion.” Id. at col. 1 l. 56–col. 2 l. 3. The specification thus recognizes that the patent is directed to image processing and facial recognition. The disclosures of the ’243 patent are thus substantial evidence supporting the Board’s de- termination that the patent is concerned with problems of image processing, particularly facial detection. Tian “logically would have commended itself to an in- ventor’s attention in considering” the identified problems of image processing and facial detection. See Clay, 966 F.2d at 659. “If a reference disclosure and the claimed 4 Only two dependent claims make any reference to an “illumination source.” ’243 patent claims 24–25. These claims were not challenged by TVision. Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 10 Filed: 08/14/2026 10 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. invention have a same purpose, the reference relates to the same problem, which supports an obviousness rejection.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Tian “explores the effects of different image resolutions for each step of facial expression analysis.” J.A. 955. TVision’s expert, Dr. Doermann, testified that Tian dis- closed “analyzing images for head detection and pose esti- mation.” J.A. 688 ¶ 36 (opining that Tian was within the same field of endeavor as the ’243 patent). The Board de- termined that Tian was reasonably pertinent because Tian, like the ’243 patent, was “directed to problems in image processing and, particularly, to problems in facial detection and analysis.” J.A. 23. The Board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. Like the challenged claims of the ’243 patent, Tian disclosed facial analysis methods that produce high rates of successful facial detection even with low-resolution images. Tian “has a same purpose” as the ’243 patent, see Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1001, and Tian’s methods would “logically . . . have commended [themselves] to an in- ventor’s attention,” see Clay, 966 F.2d at 659. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s reasonable-pertinence finding and its determina- tion that Tian is analogous art. II Nielsen contends that, even if Tian were analogous art, Tian failed to render obvious the challenged claims of the ’243 patent. “We review the Board’s obviousness determi- nation de novo and its underlying factual determinations for substantial evidence.” Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 11 Filed: 08/14/2026 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. 11 A Nielsen contends that Tian failed to disclose the limi- tations of claim 4 (and hence the limitations of claims 5 and 6, which depend from claim 4). Claim 4 recites processor circuitry to execute instructions to “reduce a resolution of a first image of the one or more of the images of the media exposure environment to obtain a reduced-resolution im- age, and determine the orientation of the head with respect to the camera based on the reduced-resolution image.” ’243 patent claim 4. First, Nielsen argues that Tian failed to disclose reduc- ing a resolution. The Board determined that Tian disclosed reducing the resolution of facial images by down-sampling based on Tian’s description of obtaining “Original” resolu- tion images from a database and that “lower resolution im- ages are down-sampled from the originals.” J.A. 29–31 (citing J.A. 955, 959). Nielsen contends that Tian’s “ge- neric teaching” of down-sampling alone fails to satisfy claim 4. Appellant’s Br. 55–56. Nielsen effectively argues that claim 4 requires pixel “binning,” which is the resolu- tion-reducing technique disclosed in the ’243 patent as suitable for audience measurement. The specification de- scribes binning as a method to improve contrast by sum- ming the signals in a block of pixels, increasing contrast at the expense of resolution. ’243 patent col. 11 ll. 5–18. But claim 4 recites “reduc[ing] a resolution” and is not limited to binning, and Tian disclosed reducing a resolution by the different method of down-sampling. This is sufficient to satisfy the resolution-reducing step. According to Nielsen, claim 4 also requires “that only a first image in an image sequence has its resolution reduced within the broader approach to audience identification claimed.” Appellant’s Br. 56. Nielsen relatedly argues that claim 4 requires that the resolution-reducing step must be performed as part of a facial analysis method, not prior to facial analysis. Nielsen contends that Tian does not satisfy Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 12 Filed: 08/14/2026 12 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. these two requirements because it taught reducing resolu- tion for all images of an image sequence prior to analysis. 5 Nielsen is wrong on the merits, so we need not decide whether the issues were raised before the Board. Claim 4 imposes no requirement that “only” the first image must be reduced in resolution, nor that the reduced-resolution step must not be performed before facial analysis. Nielsen also argues that Tian failed to teach the limi- tations of claims 5 and 6. Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 4 and additionally recite what Nielsen describes as a “two-step facial recognition process,” Appellant’s Br. 59, which includes “(i) generating a facial signature from a re- gion of a second image of the one or more of the images corresponding to a location of the head in the reduced-res- olution image, and (ii) comparing the generated facial sig- nature to a database of facial signatures,” ’243 patent claims 5–6. Nielsen argues that Tian failed to disclose the two-step facial-recognition process required by claims 5 and 6 be- cause the two-step process requires reducing the resolution of a first image but performing facial recognition on a sec- ond image without reducing its resolution, while Tian dis- closed only reducing resolution and identifying features within the same reduced-resolution image. There is no merit to Nielsen’s contention that claims 5 and 6 require a “reduced-resolution” first image for initial face detection (people-counting) and “full-resolution” second image for fa- cial recognition (person-identification). Nielsen’s argu- ment that claims 5 and 6 require a full-resolution second image is predicated on the same premise it argued for 5 Nielsen also reframes the same argument as a mo- tivation-to-combine issue, arguing that the combination would not satisfy the claim requirements. See Appellant’s Br. 72–73. Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 13 Filed: 08/14/2026 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. 13 claim 4: that only the first image in a sequence must be re- duced-resolution. As with claim 4, claims 5 and 6 impose no such requirement. The Board assumed that the recited second image was not limited to a full-resolution image and credited TVision’s expert testimony that “Tian teaches determining a face/head location in a first image and only tracking changes to face features in subsequent images” and con- cluded that Tian discloses the two-step process. J.A. 52–53 (quoting J.A. 700). We see no error in the Board’s conclu- sion, as it is consistent with Tian’s explicit disclosure that a “face detector” may “detect [a] face in the first frame and then track the face in the remainder of [a] video sequence.” J.A. 955. B Nielsen also argues that the Board erred by finding mo- tivation to combine Tian with the other prior-art references in TVision’s two asserted grounds. Nielsen contends that “TVision’s evidence does not suggest that the facial recog- nition relied on by [Lu] and Nielsen-372 were needlessly resource-consuming” so that there was no motivation to combine for greater efficiency. Appellant’s Br. 6. As to the Lu/Tian ground, the Board credited TVision’s expert testimony that Lu’s “face detection can be resource- consuming,” J.A. 48 (quoting J.A. 704 ¶ 69), and agreed that combining Lu with Tian “would prevent wasteful fa- cial recognition processing of unsuitable images,” J.A. 47. As to the Nielsen-372/Steinberg/Tian ground, the Board similarly credited TVision’s evidence that applying “Tian’s facial analysis techniques” to Nielsen-372 and Steinberg “would have . . . provided savings in processing resources and time.” J.A. 71–72 (quoting J.A. 293). Dr. Doermann testified that face detection may be re- source-intensive and that “processing resources and time can be reduced if the resolution of the image is reduced,” Case: 25-1371 Document: 39 Page: 14 Filed: 08/14/2026 14 NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC. citing a scientific publication and two patent disclosures. J.A. 704 ¶ 69 (citing J.A. 1131, 1141, 1153). Dr. Doermann provided evidence that reducing processing time was a known motivation in face detection and that Tian ex- plained how to perform face detection on reduced-resolu- tion images without sacrificing accuracy. J.A. 704–05 ¶ 69; J.A. 843–44 ¶ 287. This is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s motivation-to-combine determination on both the Lu/Tian and Nielsen-372/Steinberg/Tian grounds. “‘[U]niversal’ motivations known in a particular field to im- prove technology provide ‘a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the refer- ences themselves.’” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (emphasis in original) (quoting Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797– 99 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). CONCLUSION We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Tian is analogous art to the ’243 pa- tent, and the Board did not err in concluding that the chal- lenged claims of the ’243 patent were unpatentable. AFFIRMED