- Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01561 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–14 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness grounds, and institution would be inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“In claim 1, “server” first appears in limitation 1b’s recitation of “a server.” Ex. 1001, 21:27–28. Every subsequent mention of “server” in claim 1 recites “the server.” Id. at 21:37, 21:40, 21:48, 21:51, 21:53, 21:60. Thus, grammatically, each time claim 1 recites “the server,” it refers back to the same “server” as in all previous recitations. Accordingly, claim 1’s plain meaning refers to the same server each and every time it recites “server.” See Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, --- F.4th ---, 2023 WL 2778774 *3–4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2023) (explaining claim language reciting element with definite article refers to same element previously recited) (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Harari v. Lee, 655 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Neither party argues that any reason exists to construe claim 1’s recitations of “a server” and “the server” differently from their plain meanings. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. We construe every one of claim 1’s recitations of “server” as referring to the same server (the “same-server requirement”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier. As discussed above in Section II.B, we construe claim 1’s recitations of “the server” as all limited to the same server. Thus, as Petitioner contemplated, “the server” recited in limitation 1i is “limited to the same server as in antecedent [limitations 1e–1f].” Pet. 30. Petitioner inadequately supports its position that “Fletchall teaches that also.” Id. at 30–31. Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s explanations do not persuasively support their position that Fletchall teaches product database (121) and payment server (130) are the same server.4 Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212. For example, the observation that product database (121) and payment server (130) are part of system (100) and can communicate with one another via computer network (120) does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212; Prelim. Resp. 24. As Patent Owner 4 Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Shamos have some other basis for contending that Fletchall teaches using the same server in performing the actions recited in limitations 1f and 1i, they do not support that view with sufficiently persuasive evidence or explanation. argues, following Petitioner’s reasoning would lead to the untenable conclusion that any two components of system (100) that can communicate with one another via computer network (120), including mobile device (104) and product database (121), would be part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s contentions unpersuasive. We also find unavailing Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s observation that “Fletchall teaches that the product database 121 can be hosted on a merchant server . . . and be part of the common system 100 that includes payment server 130.” Pet. 31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 211. Hosting product database (121) on a merchant server does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Nor does including product database (121) and payment server (130) within system (100).” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier. As discussed above in Section II.B, we construe claim 1’s recitations of “the server” as all limited to the same server. Thus, as Petitioner contemplated, “the server” recited in limitation 1i is “limited to the same server as in antecedent [limitations 1e–1f].” Pet. 30. Petitioner inadequately supports its position that “Fletchall teaches that also.” Id. at 30–31. Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s explanations do not persuasively support their position that Fletchall teaches product database (121) and payment server (130) are the same server.4 Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212. For example, the observation that product database (121) and payment server (130) are part of system (100) and can communicate with one another via computer network (120) does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212; Prelim. Resp. 24. As Patent Owner 4 Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Shamos have some other basis for contending that Fletchall teaches using the same server in performing the actions recited in limitations 1f and 1i, they do not support that view with sufficiently persuasive evidence or explanation. argues, following Petitioner’s reasoning would lead to the untenable conclusion that any two components of system (100) that can communicate with one another via computer network (120), including mobile device (104) and product database (121), would be part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s contentions unpersuasive. We also find unavailing Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s observation that “Fletchall teaches that the product database 121 can be hosted on a merchant server . . . and be part of the common system 100 that includes payment server 130.” Pet. 31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 211. Hosting product database (121) on a merchant server does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Nor does including product database (121) and payment server (130) within system (100).” slip op. at 23
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“functions (VTSAs) of the server 111, the server 130, and merchant server hosting the product database 121 into the same server.” Pet. 41. As explained above in Sections II.C.3.a–c, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing unpatentability of either of challenged independent claims 1 and 10 or any of challenged dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8, 9, and 11–14. Considering this, to the extent Petitioner’s arguments and evidence may demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of dependent claim 5 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier, we do not find that instituting inter partes review would use the Board’s or the parties’ resources efficiently. See 35 U.S.C. 316(b).” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,803,435 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00780 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, finding no overlooked or misapprehended arguments concerning the denied grounds for claims 9, 10, 12–19, and 38.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. DISCUSSION Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Industries, Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The panel addressed Petitioner’s theory of modifying Radermacher’s teachings with Kenna’s teachings on, inter alia, pages 20–21 of the Decision, as referred to by Petitioner immediately above. Id.; see also id. at 16–21. Although we are mindful that issues of bodily incorporation may be irrelevant to a combination, see In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc), the Decision considered the fact that Kenna’s surgical approach is based on intra-operative alignment while Radermacher’s surgical approach is directed to pre-operative alignment, and that Petitioner did not identify a sufficient rationale to combine the different disclosed approaches. Dec. 18–21. We are not persuaded that this difference is irrelevant to whether a person of ordinary skill would have combined these approaches. The Petition does not explain adequately how to adapt Kenna’s teachings to Radermacher’s template, or why this would have been obvious to a POSITA, in light of the references’ different alignment approaches. Pet. 71–73; see Dec. 20–21. Accordingly, we conclude that the Decision did not misapprehend or overlook any arguments in the Petition.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,062,302 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00779 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Smith & Nephew’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 9, 10, 12–19, and 38.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. DISCUSSION Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Industries, Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–8, 11, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28–37, 39–43, 47, and 95–125 as obvious over Radermacher, Alexander, and Woolson, and denied institution of the remaining grounds presented in the Petitions. Dec. 1, 3, 6, 39–40. For example, we found that Petitioner had failed to make a threshold showing that claims 13, 18, and 38 of the ’302 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Radermacher, Alexander, Woolson, and Kenna, or over the combination of Radermacher, Fell, Woolson, and Kenna. See id. at 16–23. Additionally, we found that Petitioner had failed to make a threshold showing that claims 9, 10, and 12 of the ’302 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Radermacher, Alexander, and Woolson. See id. at 23–24. We also found that Petitioner had failed to make a threshold showing that claims 14–17 and 19 of the ’302 patent are unpatentable under” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“16–21. Although we are mindful that issues of bodily incorporation may be irrelevant to a combination, see In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc), the Decision considered the fact that Kenna’s surgical approach is based on intra-operative alignment while Radermacher’s surgical approach is directed to pre-operative alignment, and that Petitioner did not identify a sufficient rationale to combine the different disclosed approaches. Dec. 18–21. We are not persuaded that this difference is irrelevant to whether a person of ordinary skill would have combined these approaches. The Petition does not explain adequately how to adapt Kenna’s teachings to Radermacher’s template, or why this would have been obvious to a POSITA, in light of the references’ different alignment approaches. Pet. 71–73; see Dec. 20–21.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,062,302
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.