• Siemens Mobility, Inc. / Ground Transportation Systems USA, Inc. et al. v. Metrom Rail, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2024 · IPR2024-00947 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR for claims 1–18 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art and arguments had been presented during prosecution and no material Office error was shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “In determining whether to institute an inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”9 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Our § 325(d) analysis employs a two-prong framework: (1) whether the prior art and arguments presented in the petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office; and (2) if so, whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in its prior consideration of those prior art and arguments. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 11

  Discretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,731,738
• Gator Bio, Inc. v. Sartorius Bioanalytical Instruments, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00215 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–19 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art or arguments had been considered and no material Examiner error was shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of the prior art or arguments. Id. In general, only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, do we turn to whether Petitioner has established a material error. Id. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached

    “We have authority to institute an inter partes review only where the information presented establishes “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board also has discretion to deny review if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office,” for example, during patent prosecution. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). We exercise our discretion under § 325(d) and decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’585 patent without addressing whether Petitioner satisfies the evidentiary threshold for review under § 314(a).” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,305,585
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 22, 2023 · IPR2022-01421 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding the art and arguments substantially the same as those previously presented and no material Office error shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “[a] two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were 2 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0048142 A1 (filed Sept. 2, 2004) (published Mar. 2, 2006) (Ex. 1005, “Roese”). 3 K. Golnabi et al., Analysis of Firewall Policy Rules Using Data Mining Techniques, 2006 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, NOMS 2006, 10th IEEE/IFIP, 305–315 (2006) (Ex. 1008, “Golnabi”). 4 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0015905 A1 (filed Oct. 26, 2001) (published Jan. 22, 2004) (Ex. 1006, “Huima”). 5 U.S. Patent No. 7,320,022 B2 (filed July 25, 2002) (issued Jan. 15, 2008) (Ex. 1007, “Hayter”). 6 U.S. Patent No. 5,226,141 (filed Nov. 18, 1991) (issued July 6, 1993) (Ex. 1009, “Esbensen”). presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion that, because the first prong of the Advanced Bionics test is met, Petitioner was not required to address the second step of the test. Patent Owner disclosed the ’148 FWD to the Examiner in an IDS and the Examiner acknowledged it. Under these circumstances, it was incumbent on Petitioner to demonstrate that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability of the challenged claims. Instead, Petitioner cabined its arguments to the Examiner not having considered the art and arguments. As the Examiner acknowledged the IDS disclosing the ’148 FWD and Petitioner did not plead material error, it is appropriate for us to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution, without further reaching the merits.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “was provided via an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS). See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8. Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the Office committed material error in issuing the challenged patent, and the Petition makes no allegation of error by the Office. Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Pet. 9). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion that, because the first prong of the Advanced Bionics test is met, Petitioner was not required to address the second step of the test. Patent Owner disclosed the ’148 FWD to the Examiner in an IDS and the Examiner acknowledged it. Under these circumstances, it was incumbent on Petitioner to demonstrate that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability of the challenged claims. Instead, Petitioner cabined its arguments to the Examiner not having considered the art and arguments. As the Examiner acknowledged the IDS disclosing the ’148 FWD and Petitioner did not plead material error, it is appropriate for us to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution, without further reaching the merits.” slip op. at 10

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,681,009
• Microsoft Corporation v. Almondnet, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 30, 2023 · IPR2022-01319 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding Beyda had been presented to the Office and Microsoft had not shown material Examiner error.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “Here, Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s evidence that Beyda was previously presented to the Office. Ex. 1004, 295. Thus, the first criterion of the Advanced Bionics framework (same art or arguments) is met. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8 (“Previously presented art includes art made of record by the Examiner and art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS),”). The second inquiry in the Advanced Bionics framework asks whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8–9. As Patent Owner points out, “although the Petition admits that the Examiner considered Beyda during prosecution, it fails to make any allegation whatsoever that the Examiner erred (let alone erred in a material way) in his consideration of Beyda.” Prelim. Resp. 18. As to Narin, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “does not offer any explanation” why that reference is not “substantially the same” as art considered by the Examiner, “let alone how or why the Examiner materially erred in considering that art to not be invalidating.” Id. We agree that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Office erred in its evaluation of the cited art. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8–9 (“If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.”). Here, the Beyda prior art that was before the Examiner during the examination is identical to the art cited here.3 There is no argument or evidence before us that Beyda was concealed from the Examiner. The Examiner ultimately made a determination that the claims were patentable. Ex. 1004, 49, 92. As cautioned by Advanced Bionics, “[i]f reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Advanced Bionics goes on to explain the rationale for this rule: “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. Having considered the record presented by Patent Owner and the absence of any substantive showing from Petitioner, we are not persuaded of material Examiner error. Petitioner’s assertion that the prior art references in the Petition “were not substantively considered during the prosecution of the ’139 Patent, or in the prior CBM challenge,” without further explanation, is insufficient. In summary, applying the two-part framework of Advanced Bionics, we are persuaded to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C § 325(d).” slip op. at 10

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,671,139
• Alarm.Com, Inc. v. Vivint, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00728 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art had been presented during prosecution and no material Office error was shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”), the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 17

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “After considering the Petition and associated evidence, we exercise” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the record at this stage, we find that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (listing the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology as factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art). See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”). Accordingly, for purposes of this decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner does not propose constructions for any claim terms. See Pet. 6 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). On this record, we determine that no terms or phrases in the claims require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,349,262
• ADT LLC v. Vivint, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 22, 2022 · IPR2022-00612 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art had been considered and no material examiner error was shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “Because (1) Saylor ’265 was made of record by the examiner and contains essentially the same disclosure as Saylor, (2) we find that the disclosures of Gregory relied upon by Petitioner are duplicative of Kellen and Thomson evaluated and distinguished during examination, and (3) Petitioner extensively relies on Saylor and Gregory in each of the asserted grounds of unpatentability, we determine that the Petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art that was previously presented to” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “the time of the alleged invention would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or computer engineering (or equivalent experience), and at least two years of professional experience in remote monitoring and control systems, Internet of Things (‘IoT’), home security systems, building automation systems, machine-to-machine (‘M2M’) communications, or other similarly relevant industry experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 25). Patent Owner does not provide its own assessment regarding the level of skill in the art, or otherwise dispute Petitioner’s assertion. See Prelim. Resp. Based on our review of the record at this stage, we find that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (listing the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology as factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art). See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”). we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Neither party proposes specific claim constructions for any terms. Pet. 5; see Prelim. Resp. On this record, we determine that no terms or phrases in the claims require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,349,262
• Panduit Corp. v. Corning Optical Communications LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 6, 2022 · IPR2021-01562 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR for claims 1–30 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art and arguments had been considered and no material Office error was shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “interest to this proceeding. Pet. 75; Paper 9, 2. Patent Owner argues the “Petition’s identification of the real parties-in-interest is fatally defective” because “the RPI identified in the Petition is different from the real parties in interest identified in the Power of Attorney.” Prelim. Resp. 41–42 (citing Pet. 75). In an Updated Mandatory Notice, Petitioner identifies Panduit Corp., The Siemon Company, FS.Com, Inc., and Reichle & De-Massari Holding AG as the real parties in interest. Paper 17, 2. To the extent that the identification of the real parties in interest in the Petition may have been defective because it differed from Petitioner’s Powers of Attorney (see Papers 1–4), that defect has been cured in Petitioner’s Updated Mandatory Notice.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “part of the Advanced Bionics framework, that the Petition “presents to the Office the same or substantially the same art previously presented to the Office.” See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 7.” slip op. at 16

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,444,456
• Google LLC v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 29, 2018 · IPR2017-02067 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution: it declined review of claims 1–12, 14–17, 25, and 26 under §§ 315(d) and 325(d), and found no reasonable likelihood for claims 13, 18–24, and 27.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “Here, our exercise of discretion to deny institution under §§ 315(d) and 325(d) is warranted for several reasons. To start with, the previous IPRs and the present Petition rely on Zydney as the primary reference against which the majority of the claim limitations are mapped. Petitioner has proffered no reasoning regarding how it has relied on Zydney in any way that differs materially from the previous IPRs. And Petitioner’s reliance on different secondary references does not remedy this shortcoming. Moreover, Petitioner, here, does not explain whether the secondary references in this case are used in a different manner or add anything materially different to the secondary references used in the previous IPRs. Further, Zydney is being considered on the merits in pending IPRs. In fact, two trials regarding the ’433 patent are ongoing, with Zydney as the hallmark, i.e., a distinctive feature, of those trials. See IPR2017-01427 and IPR2017-01428. Under these circumstances, we look to Petitioner to provide some reason that convinces us to institute yet another trial that features Zydney as prominently as the previously presented IPRs. Again, if there was a manner in which Petitioner here distinguishably relied on Zydney, Petitioner did not proffer that fact explicitly. Moreover, the time of filing of this Petition leads us to conclude that Petitioner gained the benefit of Patent Owner’s preliminary responses in the previous IPRs. Patent Owner filed those responses on September 9, 2017. Three days later Petitioner filed the instant petition. Petitioner, as the party with the knowledge of this fact, failed to allege that it did not gain the benefit of the preliminary responses in previous IPRs. We look to Petitioner to explain its delay in its filing. Petitioner provides no reason here. Finally, although not a dispositive fact, we note that in the previous IPRs, Patent Owner requested authorization to file a motion to amend challenged claims of the ’433 patent. This fact raises concerns regarding the complexity and potential for inconsistency inherent in allowing this proceeding to occur in tandem with ongoing trials that arise in large part from the considerable role Zydney plays each proceeding. Further, we are concerned not only with ensuring consistency across multiple trials focused on Zydney, but also with administrative efficiency because significant resources of the Board would be consumed reconciling arguments, issues, and evidence across multiple, independent trials,3 especially in light of the forthcoming motion to amend in the previous IPRs. Cf. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (indicating an agency, when deciding whether to take action in a particular matter, must determine whether its resources are best spent on one matter or another).” slip op. at 9

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “authority, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122, to issue “any appropriate order regarding the additional matter[, i.e., this proceeding,] including providing for the stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination or any such matter.” See 35 U.S.C. § 315(d). We recognize that in exercising our discretion we determine the proper course of conduct in a proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.5) in a manner consistent with securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)). Here, our exercise of discretion to deny institution under §§ 315(d) and 325(d) is warranted for several reasons. To start with, the previous IPRs and the present Petition rely on Zydney as the primary reference against which the majority of the claim limitations are mapped. Petitioner has proffered no reasoning regarding how it has relied on Zydney in any way that differs materially from the previous IPRs. And Petitioner’s reliance on different secondary references does not remedy this shortcoming. Moreover, Petitioner, here, does not explain whether the secondary references in this case are used in a different manner or add anything materially different to the secondary references used in the previous IPRs. Further, Zydney is being considered on the merits in pending IPRs. In fact, two trials regarding the ’433 patent are ongoing, with Zydney as the hallmark, i.e., a distinctive feature, of those trials. See IPR2017-01427 and IPR2017-01428. Under these circumstances, we look to Petitioner to provide some reason that convinces us to institute yet another trial that features Zydney as prominently as the previously presented IPRs. Again, if there was a manner in which Petitioner here distinguishably relied on Zydney, Petitioner did not proffer that fact explicitly.” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “likelihood of prevailing with regard to its contention that claim 13 is anticipated by Zydney. In particular, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Zydney’s software agent “displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode.” This is an anticipation challenge, which requires that the art disclose each and every limitation of the claim, in the same arrangement as claimed. Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Board cannot fill in the gaps and consider what an ordinary artisan might supplement or envisage. Net MoneyIn, 545 F.3d at 1372; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, 851 F.3d 1270, 1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (The Board is not permitted to “fill in missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision them.”). The Petition sets forth that Zydney teaches a “selectable control” because the software agent permits a number of distinct modes of communication and that the originator selects a delivery mode, i.e., intercom mode. Pet. 1718. But with regard to the display of the “selectable control,” Petitioner states that “Zydney plainly teaches that its software agent’s user interface displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode based on the connectivity status (e.g., status of the recipient) of an intended recipient.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58). In support, the Min Declaration mentions “display” in reference to selecting the recipients, stating, “Once the originator has selected the recipients from the display, Zydney’s system allows the originator to select a delivery option depending on which ‘core state’ the intended recipient is in—online or offline.” Id. This is insufficient support for demonstrating that Zydney discloses the display limitation of claim 13. Claim 13 recites that the “instant voice messaging application displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode.” Neither the Petition nor the Min Declaration addresses the display of the “selectable control for generating an instant voice message.” At best, the Min Declaration adduces to the display of a list of recipients and their selection. But there is no explanation as to the display of the “selectable control” in Zydney or citation of evidence that Zydney displays any selection such that it can generate a voice message in intercom mode. Without evidence that Zydney discloses the recited “display,” we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Zydney anticipates the claim. Therefore, Petitioner’s contention of unpatentability regarding claim 13 does not meet the reasonable likelihood institution threshold.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Board cannot fill in the gaps and consider what an ordinary artisan might supplement or envisage. Net MoneyIn, 545 F.3d at 1372; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, 851 F.3d 1270, 1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (The Board is not permitted to “fill in missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision them.”). The Petition sets forth that Zydney teaches a “selectable control” because the software agent permits a number of distinct modes of communication and that the originator selects a delivery mode, i.e., intercom mode. Pet. 1718. But with regard to the display of the “selectable control,” Petitioner states that “Zydney plainly teaches that its software agent’s user interface displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode based on the connectivity status (e.g., status of the recipient) of an intended recipient.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58). In support, the Min Declaration mentions “display” in reference to selecting the recipients, stating, “Once the originator has selected the recipients from the display, Zydney’s system allows the originator to select a delivery option depending on which ‘core state’ the intended recipient is in—online or offline.” Id. This is insufficient support for demonstrating that Zydney discloses the display limitation of claim 13. Claim 13 recites that the “instant voice messaging application displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode.” Neither the Petition nor the Min Declaration addresses the display of the “selectable control for generating an instant voice message.” At best, the Min Declaration adduces to the display of a list of recipients and their selection. But there is no explanation as to the display of the “selectable control” in Zydney or citation of evidence that Zydney displays any selection such that it can generate a voice message in intercom mode. Without evidence that Zydney discloses the recited “display,” we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Zydney anticipates the claim. Therefore, Petitioner’s contention of unpatentability regarding claim 13 does not meet the reasonable likelihood institution threshold.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,995,433
• Viptela, Inc. v. Fatpipe Networks Private LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 3, 2017 · IPR2017-01125 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 4–15, 19, and 22–24, exercising discretion under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) based on overlapping petitions, follow-on arguments, and inefficient use of resources.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “’684 IPR, which in turn was a “copy-cat” of the ’976 IPR petition. Prelim. Resp. 2, 5. However, in deciding whether we should exercise our discretion and decline to go forward with this Petition, our concern is not only whether “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office,” as expressed in § 325(d), but also whether other factors weigh in favor of denying institution in light of the discretion afforded to us pursuant to § 314(a).” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied

    “whether at the time of filing of the ’684 petition, Petitioner knew, or should have known, of Pearce, Zhang, and McCullough (“the Additional References”); the length of time that elapsed between learning of the Additional References, and the filing of the instant Petition; whether Petitioner has provided adequate explanation for the time lapse; whether at the time of filing of the instant Petition, Petitioner already had access to Patent Owner’s response in the ’976 IPR; and the finite resources of the Board. See Gen. Plastic Indus. at 16 (Paper 19) (informative). Petitioner provides no explanation of whether it knew or should have known of the Additional References when filing the ’684 petition; of when it first learned of these references; or of any time lapse between learning of these references and the filing of the instant Petition.” slip op. at 13

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “August 14, 2017, and a final decision is due by November 2, 2017. At this point, the decision in the ’976 IPR as to whether to see the matter through to final determination is squarely in our hands, regardless of whether any settlement is reached between the parties. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a) (“The parties may agree to settle any issue in a proceeding, but the Board is not a party to the settlement and may independently determine any question of jurisdiction, patentability, or Office practice.”). Thus, if we deem it appropriate, we can reach a final decision on the grounds presented in the ’976 IPR with or without participation from the parties in that matter. These facts weigh in favor of us exercising our discretion not to move forward with the instant Petition, at least with respect to the ’976 instituted claims insofar as Petitioner’s arguments relate to Karol and are substantially identical to those in the ’976 IPR, because the issues raised are fully briefed and ripe for a final decision in the ’976 IPR, and Petitioner’s non-participation in that proceeding is at best neutral to our analysis. Petitioner is a party to the ’684 IPR, and in that proceeding the petition is directed to the same claims of the same patent as in this Petition. This fact weighs in favor of us not moving forward with the instant Petition. Also, at least with respect to the ’684 instituted claims, insofar as Petitioner’s arguments relate to Karol and are substantially identical to those in the ’684 IPR, Petitioner has the opportunity to address the same art and arguments in the ’684 proceeding. It would be an inefficient use of Office resources, and would run counter to securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the challenges to the patentability of the ’235 patent, if we were to allow Petitioner to proceed on the same art and arguments in two separate proceedings.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner submits a list of terms for which Patent Owner has proposed construction in a co-pending district court case. Pet. 7–8. Petitioner, however, asserts that for the purposes of this Decision no terms need to be construed. Id. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. We reviewed the parties’ arguments, and, for the purposes of this Decision, we have determined that no terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 7

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,775,235
• Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2017 · IPR2016-01775 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on the Hsieh and Applicad obviousness ground for all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding the petition repeated substantially the same art or arguments as the first petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “Petitioner argues that because we did not reach the merits of the First Petition, Petitioner should be allowed to present more specific evidence regarding public accessibility in the Second Petition to allow the Board to reach the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. Second Pet. 5–6. Absent a good reason, a subsequently filed petition that only corrects defects identified by a Board decision in a prior petition typically is not granted. See, e.g., Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., Case IPR2014-00581, slip op. at 12–13 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) (Paper 8); NetApp Inc. v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., IPR2015-00776, slip op. at 8 (PTAB Sept. 8, 2015) (Paper 13).” slip op. at 6

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,078,436

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.