- LG Electronics Inc. / LG Electronics USA, Inc. v. Image Processing Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00104 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claim 1, finding the petition presented the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously considered by the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (The Director delegated her authority to determine whether trial should be instituted to the Board.). Section 325(d) of Title 35 of the United States Code states, in relevant part: “In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We use a two-part framework for evaluating arguments 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.” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“applied the construction of “the [at least two] calculation units being configured to form a histogram representative of the parameter” (the “common parameter” limitation) as meaning “the histogram calculation units being configured to each form a histogram representative of at least one common parameter.” Ex. 1005 (IPR 336 Final Written Decision), 12– 14; see Ex. 1006 (IPR 1189 Decision Denying Institution), 9; Ex. 1007 (Reexam 056 Decision finding claim 1 patentable), 8.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,959,293 - PTAB · Sep 5, 2017 · IPR2017-00072 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its discretionary denial of institution because the petition presented the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Sabbaghian, disclosing an adjustable socket wrench, and Baker, disclosing a tube pointer, were not considered during prosecution. See Pet. 37, 41. Petitioner relies on Sabbaghian and Baker as disclosing dies arranged to form a variable-sized polygonal aperture, the only claimed feature Petitioner argues is missing from the alleged Applicant Admitted Prior Art. Pet. 3– 4, 37–43. According to Petitioner, “the polygonal-shaped die configuration is nothing new,” and “[f]or more than a century, skilled artisans have used such a configuration.” Id. at 4. Petitioner concedes that “[t]he die configuration disclosed in Sabbaghian and Baker is not unique. Such a die configuration is common in the prior art.” Id. at 93 (under the heading “The Claimed Die Configuration Was Ubiquitous In The Prior Art”). Although Sabbaghian and Baker were not considered, Petitioner notes that during examination Whitesell was applied as disclosing a crimper with a “substantially regular polygonal shape.” Pet. 22. Similarly, Tuberman was considered during prosecution as teaching a device with “an aperture of a substantially regular polygonal shape.” See Prelim. Resp. 19 (quoting Ex. 1002, 45). For the foregoing reasons we determine that the alleged Applicant Admitted Prior Art and Morales were previously presented to the Office. Additionally, the Petition further presents information from Sabbaghian and Baker, generally described by Petitioner as “ubiquitous” in the prior art, which we find to be the same or substantially the same as information considered during prosecution in the context of other references, including Whitesell and Tuberman. Id. at 10–11. According to Petitioner, “[t]he only distinction between the AAPA and the challenged claims is the shape and arrangement of the blades that form the claimed ‘polygonal aperture.’” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 94). Petitioner argues that Whitesell can be distinguished from the asserted prior art in this proceeding because it does not teach “the straight-sided die/polygonal aperture limitation.” Req. Reh’g. 7. However, Petitioner does not dispute that Tuberman discloses this feature. See id. at 7–8. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a substantial difference between the art previously considered by the Office and the alleged prior art asserted in the Petition. Instead, Petitioner argues that the Examiner did not apply Tuberman in combination with the alleged Applicant Admitted Prior Art. According to Petitioner, “the Examiner applied Tuberman individually as an anticipatory reference,” and “[i]t is irrelevant to speculate why the Examiner did not make a combination that is so readily apparent.” Req. Reh’g. 8, 11.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,915,560 - PNC Bank, N.A. v. Secure Axcess, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 10, 2015 · CBM2015-00039 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution of CBM review for claims 1–32, exercising discretion under §§ 324(a) and 325(d) because PNC’s petition repeated substantially similar arguments and prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the AIA grants broad discretion to determine the course that best balances the parties’ competing interests in these proceedings. We recognize the need to balance permitting Petitioner to present new evidence and arguments in multiple petitions against protecting Patent Owner from harassment in the form of repetitive, serial petitions challenging the same patent. See H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt.1, at 48 (2011) (AIA proceedings “are not to be used as tools for harassment or a means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation and administrative attacks on the validity of a patent. Doing so would frustrate the purpose of the section as providing quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.”). We also are mindful of the need for efficiency. It is more efficient for the parties and the Board to address a matter once rather than multiple times.” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Petitioner fails to provide, however, evidence or analysis as to why a diligent search would not have discovered the prior art relied upon in this Petition. Petitioner’s unsupported, conclusory statements are not persuasive in view of the relationship between the prior art asserted in the two Petitions. In CBM2014-00100, the SHTTP reference asserted in CBM2014-00100 is the SHTTP standard by the Internet Engineering Task Force. CBM2014- 00100 Pet. viii, 20. In the present Petition, the Petitioner indicates that “cited prior art relates to Secure HyperText Transfer Protocol (SHTTP) and browsers implementing SHTTP.” Pet. 17. Although not the same references, Petitioner challenges the same claims using the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments. Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the AIA grants broad discretion to determine the course that best balances the parties’ competing interests in these proceedings. We recognize the need to balance permitting Petitioner to present new evidence and arguments in multiple petitions against protecting Patent Owner from harassment in the form of repetitive, serial petitions challenging the same patent. See H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt.1, at 48 (2011) (AIA proceedings “are not to be used as tools for harassment or a means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation and administrative attacks on the validity of a patent. Doing so would frustrate the purpose of the section as providing quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.”). We also are mindful of the need for efficiency. It is more efficient for the parties and the Board to address a matter once rather than multiple times.” slip op. at 19
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the AIA grants broad discretion to determine the course that best balances the parties’ competing interests in these proceedings. We recognize the need to balance permitting Petitioner to present new evidence and arguments in multiple petitions against protecting Patent Owner from harassment in the form of repetitive, serial petitions challenging the same patent. See H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt.1, at 48 (2011) (AIA proceedings “are not to be used as tools for harassment or a means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation and administrative attacks on the validity of a patent. Doing so would frustrate the purpose of the section as providing quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.”). We also are mindful of the need for efficiency. It is more efficient for the parties and the Board to address a matter once rather than multiple times.” slip op. at 19
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,631,191
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.