- Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01114 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 2, 27–30, 32–36, 38, 40, 42–44, 46, 47, 52, 54, 57, and 59, exercising discretion because this was the fourth-ranked parallel petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“petition is warranted given the number of claims at issue. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (identifying situations where “two petitions . . . may be needed”). Patent Owner has asserted 166 claims in the co-pending district court litigation, and Petitioner challenges 91 unique claims in these petitions. See Ranking Notice 2; Ranking Response 2. Also, the vast majority of the challenged claims are asserted in litigation. See Ranking Response 2; Ex. 2004, 3. As a result, we agree that this is the type of “rare” situation where multiple parallel petitions are necessary. Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot justify a large number of petitions by claiming that it needed additional words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise. 10 A petitioner is not entitled to an unlimited number of petitions (see Trial Practice Guide 59–61); instead, we determine whether the circumstances justify additional petitions (see id. at 59–60). This approach conforms with the rationale behind imposing a word count limit on petitions. See id. at 39 (discussing the reasons for establishing word count limits and urging parties to present “concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.”). i.e., the analysis of claim 2, the summary of the ’754 patent and prior art, the articulation of the level of skill in the art and claim construction, and the other preliminary comments—and we are not persuaded that they are sufficiently concise to support Petitioner’s argument. Claim 2 is only fifteen lines long, and its technology is relatively simple, yet Petitioner’s analysis of this claim stretches for seventeen pages. See Pet. 24–41. Petitioner provides no general information about the technology and submits that no claims need to be construed (id. at 7), yet Petitioner provides a five-page summary of the ’754 patent and its prosecution history (see id. at 2–6). Also, Petitioner provides a twelve-page summary of Ahn and Chaudhri (see id. at 7–19), despite the fact that neither reference is particularly long. Indeed, as Patent Owner notes, Petitioner was able to remove nearly 1,000 words from these common sections in at least one of the petitions. See Ranking Response 3–4. Because Petitioner’s analysis in the common sections does not appear to be concise, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s use of approximately 8,350 words in those sections justifies the large number of petitions.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - Aylo Freesites Ltd v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00941 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 under § 314(a), finding a second review would impose unnecessary burden without sufficient efficiency or fairness justification.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to explain why the Leaning grounds in IPR2024-00940 are not sufficient for challenging claims 1–20 of the ’234 patent. Indeed, “both petitions contain strong invalidating prior art” by Petitioner’s own reckoning (Pet. Ranking 2), and Petitioner characterizes Leaning as “undoubtably very strong invalidating prior art” (id. at 4). We further note that both petitions challenge all 20 claims of the ’234 patent, so the scope of the challenges is exactly the same in both cases. As a result, we are not persuaded that the differences between the petitions militate in favor of instituting both proceedings.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,991,234 - Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2022-00888 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution: Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1–13, and trying claim 42 alone would be inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“institution that Elko discloses a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1 and Petitioner does not rely on Boll or Buck for teaching a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1, Petitioner does not establish sufficiently for purposes of institution that the combined disclosures in Elko, Boll, and Buck teach claim 1’s subject matter. See Pet. 23–25; Prelim. Reply 1–2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 55–58; supra § IV.D.4(a). Hence, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in proving claim 1 unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Elko, Boll, and Buck.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“for purposes of institution that Elko discloses a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1. See Pet. 23–25, 36–38; Prelim. Reply 1–2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 55–58, 81–82. For forming the “first virtual microphone” and the “second virtual microphone” claim 1 recites three different signals: “a first signal,” “a second signal,” and “a first intermediate signal” formed by applying a filter to “the first signal.” Ex. 1001, 37:5–9, 37:16–19. “Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.” Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,” slip op. at 30
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“for purposes of institution that Elko discloses a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1. See Pet. 23–25, 36–38; Prelim. Reply 1–2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 55–58, 81–82. For forming the “first virtual microphone” and the “second virtual microphone” claim 1 recites three different signals: “a first signal,” “a second signal,” and “a first intermediate signal” formed by applying a filter to “the first signal.” Ex. 1001, 37:5–9, 37:16–19. “Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.” Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,” slip op. at 30
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“the ’213 patent. Pet. 3, 23–83. As discussed above, Petitioner fails to satisfy the “reasonable likelihood” institution standard for four of the five challenges and thirteen of the fourteen challenged claims. See supra §§ IV.D–IV.E. At best, Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” institution standard for only one of the five challenges and only one of the 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. fourteen challenged claims. See supra § IV.F. These circumstances weigh in favor of exercising our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. See, e.g., Netscout Sys., Inc. v. Longhorn HD LLC, IPR2021-01258, Paper 11 at 23–24 (PTAB Feb. 10, 2022) (exercising discretion to deny institution); Sling TV L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01391, Paper 7 at 25–27 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2020) (exercising discretion to deny institution).” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,321,213 - Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 12, 2020 · IPR2020-00115 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving in place its discretionary denial of institution for claims 1–3 under § 314(a).
RulingsRehearing decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“that the relevant facts were substantially the same as those presented in NHK. Decision 6–9. The district court had scheduled trial for August 2 Although the Consolidated TPG was published after the Petition was filed, the earlier version (available when the Petition was filed) also includes this guidance. See July 2019 Office Trial Practice Guide Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 33,925 (July 16, 2019). 2020—more than seven months before a final written decision would be due—and the record included “no evidence that the district court has granted (or would grant) a stay pending inter partes review.” Id. at 7. Further, Petitioner “present[ed] overlapping arguments in the Texas Litigation and in the Petition.” Id. at 8 (citing Pet. 24; Ex. 2003, 5, 14–15, 18). Although “the Texas Litigation and the Petition [did] not involve an identical set of claims”—as dependent claims 2 and 3 were not asserted in the Texas Litigation, but were challenged in the Petition—we were not persuaded that this fact alone justified a trial here, as the Board had already instituted two other inter partes review proceedings challenging all claims of the ’609 patent. Id. at 9 (citing Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019- 01367, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 4, 2020) (Institution Decision); Netflix, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, IPR2020-00041, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2020) (Institution Decision)). For these reasons, we exercised our discretion to deny the Petition. Id. at 10.” slip op. at 3
- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“III. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Id.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,407,609
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.