- Microsoft Corporation v. Almondnet, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 denialPatents in suitUS 8,671,139 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 16, 2019 · IPR2019-00060 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing only to address the overlooked construction dispute, but again denied institution because Jensen did not teach “mobile protection code.”
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“(“Dec. on Inst.”). The panel concluded that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the asserted obviousness grounds because, for a particular ground, Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Jensen1 teaches “mobile protection code.” Dec. on Inst. 11−12.2 Petitioner has filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 8 (“Req. Reh’g”). Petitioner argues that the scope for the claim term “mobile protection code” was in dispute, and that we “failed to resolve the key claim construction dispute between the parties.” Id. at 1. According to Petitioner, rehearing is warranted to resolve the claim construction dispute and “fix the plain error in the Institution Decision.” Id. We are persuaded that in failing to address Petitioner’s construction, we overlooked the matter raised in Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed infra, after giving due consideration to Petitioner’s argument, we are persuaded that our decision to deny institution was correct, and therefore we deny the request insofar as it calls upon us to institute trial.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“(“Dec. on Inst.”). The panel concluded that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the asserted obviousness grounds because, for a particular ground, Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Jensen1 teaches “mobile protection code.” Dec. on Inst. 11−12.2 Petitioner has filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 8 (“Req. Reh’g”). Petitioner argues that the scope for the claim term “mobile protection code” was in dispute, and that we “failed to resolve the key claim construction dispute between the parties.” Id. at 1. According to Petitioner, rehearing is warranted to resolve the claim construction dispute and “fix the plain error in the Institution Decision.” Id. We are persuaded that in failing to address Petitioner’s construction, we overlooked the matter raised in Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed infra, after giving due consideration to Petitioner’s argument, we are persuaded that our decision to deny institution was correct, and therefore we deny the request insofar as it calls upon us to institute trial.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“1 Protection Wrappers: A Simple and Portable Sandbox for Untrusted Applications, Proceedings on the 8th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop on Support for Composing Distributed Applications, filed in the record as Exhibit 1006. 2 We also exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d) and denied institution. Petitioner does not challenge the exercise of discretion in this request for rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“1 Protection Wrappers: A Simple and Portable Sandbox for Untrusted Applications, Proceedings on the 8th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop on Support for Composing Distributed Applications, filed in the record as Exhibit 1006. 2 We also exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d) and denied institution. Petitioner does not challenge the exercise of discretion in this request for rehearing.” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,647,633 - Avita Medical Limited v. Renovacare Sciences Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 18, 2017 · IPR2017-01243 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds, finding the petition relied on the same or substantially the same prior art previously considered by the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Our discretion pursuant to § 325(d) involves a balance between several competing interests. “On the one hand, there are the interests in conserving the resources of the Office and granting patent owners repose on issues and prior art that have been considered previously.” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, Case IPR2016-01876, slip op. at 7 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2017) (Paper 8). “On the other hand, are the interests of giving petitioner the opportunity to be heard and correcting any errors by the Office in allowing a patent—in the case of an inter partes review—over prior art patents and printed publications.” Id.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,610,430 - Robert Bosch Tool Corporation v. Sd3, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 22, 2017 · IPR2016-01754 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding the petition presented substantially the same prior art and arguments previously considered during prosecution.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“similarities between the prior art references presented here, in this Petition, as compared to the prior art substantively considered by the Examiner, we determine that the evidence weighs in favor of a determination that the prior art asserted in the Petition was previously considered by the Office. We are persuaded that the prior art of Nieberle, either in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art or Bielinski, and Lokey, either in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill or Bielinski, as asserted in this proceeding in grounds 1–4 against claims 1–8 and 10–17 are “the same or substantially the same prior art” as that specifically relied on and considered substantively by the Examiner, and overcome by Applicant, during prosecution of the underlying patent application. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“machine safety would have known could achieve the claimed speed and distance. This testimony, following his desired acceleration calculation however, fails to state affirmatively that it was even possible by explosive devices and capacitors to achieve the claimed time and distance performance characteristics asserted in the calculation. More importantly, Mr. Main’s testimony fails to persuasively explain how any known explosives or capacitors available to one of skill in the art at the time of invention, would have achieved such an acceleration and a mechanical actuation of the “moveable component 1/32nd of an inch within approximately 3 milliseconds or less after the dangerous condition is detected” as called for in claims 1, 13, and 16 of the ’279 patent. By way of another example, Mr. Main’s declaration refers to a spring loaded actuator disclosed by Bielinski, the secondary reference combined with Nieberle in ground 2, and asserts that it “could have provided sufficient energy (depending on size, etc.), and it would have been obvious to use it.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 258. Even assuming that Mr. Main is forthrightly stating that the “sufficient energy” developed by Bielinski’s actuator could actuate a moveable member to move 1/32nd of an inch in 3 milliseconds or less, nowhere in his declaration can we find that Mr. Main provides any persuasive technical reasoning or analysis to support this allegation. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, V.B.9).” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot reached
“IV. CONCLUSION We conclude that the facts and evidence do not establish a sufficient or persuasive reason for the Board to again consider the same prior art, the same claims, and substantially the same arguments as substantively considered in the examination of the application leading to the ’279 patent. Further, because we are guided by our analysis above to exercise our discretion in this threshold matter under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and deny institution in this case, we need not reach a different threshold issue raised by Patent Owner in their Preliminary Response, that is whether Petitioner is time-barred by an ITC investigation, (Inv. No. 337-TA-965), under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).” slip op. at 21
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,011,279 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01999 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding the petition presented the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously considered by the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“We deny the Petition for three reasons. First, the patent-at-issue has undergone a full reexamination and an appeal of that proceeding. The same subject matter and arguments were presented in both the reexamination proceeding and on appeal. Petitioner, essentially, asks the Board to undertake a second post-grant assessment on issues that have been decided by the Office previously and in a matter inconsistent with the previous findings and conclusions of the Board. Second, although the references themselves are not identical to the prior art already considered, the same subject matter was considered thoroughly in the reexamination proceeding. We are not persuaded that the addition of a witness declaration, by itself, is sufficient to persuade us that the thorough evaluation the claims underwent in reexamination in light of a more detailed disclosure of the same technology as that alleged in the Petition should be set aside. Finally, although we acknowledge that Petitioner has a direct interest in pursuing the instant Petition, we also acknowledge the burden and expense to Patent Owner in having to defend another challenge of the patent-at-issue based on substantially the same prior art or arguments already considered. See Prelim. Resp. 13. Further, in view of the fact that the Board has already thoroughly considered these issues in deciding the appeal, we determine that the resources of the Board should not be expended revisiting them again here.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the instant Petition raises the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments as those previously presented to the Office. In light of the circumstances of the present case, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review of the ’822 patent. IV. ORDER It is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,058,822
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.