- Motorola Mobility LLC v. Maxell, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 2, 2023 · IPR2022-01287 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–6 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same prior art had been presented and no material Office error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“cumulative to at least Kijima and Tani, as well as Petitioner’s cumulative use of Sawanobori, Silver, and Teranishi, we find that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is met. Other Board decisions have reached the same conclusion given circumstances similar to this case. See, e.g., Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Power2B, Inc., IPR2021-01190, Paper 11 at 15–17 (PTAB Jan. 6, 2022).” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,059,177 - Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 3, 2023 · IPR2022-01197 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Ogawa grounds and § 325(d) barred the Vea grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The findings and conclusions set forth in this Decision are provided for the exclusive purpose of explaining our determination that Petitioner has not met that standard on this record. slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“framework set forth under Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 7 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). Under that framework, we must first determine whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. If so, we must then determine whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Id. at 8.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). A more specific definition is not necessary for purposes of deciding whether to institute review. To the extent a more specific definition is required, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“12 Dr. Madisetti’s testimony here is entitled to little to no weight as it merely parrots the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 19
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,816,809 - Autel Intelligent Technology Corp., Ltd. v. Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 8, 2022 · IPR2021-01545 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 16–19, 21, and 23–29 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art and arguments had been considered and Petitioner had not shown Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“On the whole, we find the Petition cites substantially the same art previously presented to the Office in the Third Reexamination. Patent Owner identifies extensive similarities between the art from the Third Reexamination and the art cited by the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 1, 21–24. Four out of the five references cited by the Petition are identical to the references considered in the Third Reexamination. E.g., Pet. 9–10, 71–72; Ex. 1005, 18–19; Prelim. Resp. 21–22. Although Nihei was not considered during the Third Reexamination, Petitioner does not show any material difference between Nihei and the references cited in the Third Reexamination. To the contrary, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s unpersuasive arguments about the judging consistency limitation do not demonstrate that Nihei discloses this limitation any more so than Toyofuku. Prelim. Resp. 22–23. On the whole, we find Petitioner’s arguments about Nihei less persuasive than Patent Owner’s arguments that Nihei is cumulative to the art cited during the Third Reexamination. Prelim. Resp. 1, 8–18, 22–24. Thus, Becton, Dickinson factors (a) and (b) support Patent Owner’s position that substantially the same art was presented to the Office in the Third Reexamination. Additionally, we find significant overlap between arguments made during the Third Reexamination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art cited in the Petition. In the Third Reexamination, Petitioner’s counsel cited Toyofuku as allegedly disclosing the judging consistency limitation. Ex. 1005, 58–9. Here, Petitioner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Toyofuku discloses the judging consistency limitation. Pet. 44. Thus, Becton, Dickinson factor (d) also supports Patent Owner’s position that substantially the same art and arguments were presented to the Office in the Third Reexamination. Having determined that the Petition presents substantially the same art and arguments previously presented to the Office, we proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics inquiry.” slip op. at 23
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,031,064 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00717 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims: Grounds 1–3, 6, and 7 failed the institution threshold, and Grounds 4 and 5 were denied under § 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“the list of cited references of the ’203 Patent. Ex. 1001, 2; Ex. 1002, 430. Because the same reference was cited during prosecution, there is no material difference between Christensen and the prior art involved during examination. Given these facts, we need not further evaluate factor (b), whether Christensen is cumulative, nor factor (d), the extent of overlap in arguments regarding Christensen. Thus, we find that the same reference was previously presented to the Office, and we move on to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the Petition does not establish there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in establishing at least one of Challenged Claims of the ’203 Patent as unpatentable under certain grounds presented in the Petition, and that the remaining asserted grounds should be denied pursuant to our delegated discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review as to any of the challenged claims of the ’203 Patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have had at least a B.S. in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and three years of experience working in the communications- or Internet-related industries” and that “[m]ore education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” C. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 43). Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill appears to be generally consistent with the subject matter of the ’203 Patent. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner that the recited database system should be given no patentable weight. The Federal Circuit explains that [p]roduct-by-process claims are not specifically discussed in the patent statute. The practice and governing law have developed in response to the need to enable an applicant to claim an otherwise patentable product that resists definition by other than the process by which it is made. For this reason, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). With respect to patentability, “[i]f the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” Id. The Federal Circuit has clearly stated that “[i]n determining validity of a product-by-process claim, the focus is on the product and not the process of making it.” Purdue Pharma, 811 F.3d at 1354 (quoting Greenliant Sys., Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). “That is because of the . . . longstanding rule that an old product is not patentable even if it is made by a new process.” Id. Generally, therefore, the recited process steps in a product-by-process claim are not accorded patentable weight. See In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, 881 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he Board typically will not accord patentable weight to a process limitation in a product-by-process claim.”) (citing Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,200,203 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00718 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on the Levy grounds and § 325(d) warranted denial of the Christensen ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response and for the reasons explained below, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 of the ’843 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he [Office] is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an [inter partes review] proceeding.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), in determining whether to institute an inter partes review, “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.” In evaluating the exercise of discretion to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining 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 the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying the two-part framework, we consider several non- exclusive factors, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”). Factors (a), (b), and (d) of the Becton, Dickinson factors 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 that art or arguments. Id. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. 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 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“Based on our review of Petitioner’s relied-upon portions of Levy, Levy uses an extracted identifier, such as a broadcaster ID, and “context information” to identify an audio object. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 15, 56. Thus, if we accepted Petitioner’s position that obtaining Levy’s “object identifier” discloses “acquir[ing] encoded third party data associated with the reception of the specific instance of the media segment in the electronic transmission,” Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how context information that is extracted and forwarded with the broadcaster ID to obtain the “object identifier” can disclose “generat[ing] data that enables the unique identification of the specific instance of acquisition of the encoded third party data.” See Pet. 57–60; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–194. Petitioner does not identifier” can be acquired and generated in the manner argued by Petitioner. See Pet. 57–60; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–194; see also Prelim. Resp. 36–37 (contending that Petitioner’s anticipation challenges lack particularity). As argued by Patent Owner, claim 10 requires that “generat[ing] data that enables the unique identification of the specific instance of acquisition of the encoded third party data” occur either after or at the same time as “acquir[ing] encoded third party data associated with the reception of the specific instance of the media segment in the electronic transmission.” Ex. 1001, 36:28–33. Claim 10 recites a “specific instance of acquisition of the encoded third party data” that apparently refers to the earlier-recited “acquire encoded third party data associated with the reception of the specific instance of the media segment in the electronic transmission,” and Petitioner does not address the interpretation of “acquisition” in view of the previously recited “acquire.” See Pet. 9–10, 57–60. Additionally, Petitioner’s declarant testimony does not explain further the arguments or evidence presented in the Petition and does not provide additional evidence beyond that cited in the Petition. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–194. Thus, for the reasons above, Petitioner fails to show that Levy discloses all the limitations of independent claim 10. 3. Dependent Claims 11, 13, and 15 Petitioner argues that Levy anticipates dependent claims 11, 13, and 15 with citations to the record. Pet. 65–69. Petitioner’s arguments and relied upon evidence for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies discussed above for independent claim 10. that Levy discloses all the limitations of dependent claims 11, 13, and 15 and, therefore, fails to show that Levy anticipates these claims.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“4. Asserted Obviousness in view of Levy and Finley Petitioner argues that: [t]o the extent . . . that Levy does not anticipate the Challenged Claims because Levy does not disclose the complete details of the claimed database (in other words, that the difference between each claim as a whole and the prior art as a whole is the explicit recitation of the claimed database), it would have been obvious to store the object ID lookup information or purchase transaction tracking information. Pet. 69 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 227); see also id. (contending that Levy teaches storing a transaction log in a log file of a database). Petitioner’s arguments that Levy and Finley would have rendered obvious claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 do not further address the limitations we discussed above for claim 10, and Petitioner’s proposed modification of Levy in view of Finley does not remedy the deficiencies of Petitioner’s arguments that Levy discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Thus, for the reasons discussed above for claim 10, Petitioner fails to show that Levy and Finley teach or suggest all the limitations of claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 and, therefore, fails to show that Levy and Finley would have rendered obvious these claims. 5. Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing As discussed above, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Levy anticipates claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 and fail to show that Levy and Finley would have rendered obvious these claims. Petitioner, therefore, fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges based on Levy.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,584,843 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00719 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Levy grounds and § 325(d) warranted denial of the Christensen ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“example, claim 5 recites “data that identifies a source of the data stream,” “third party encoded data,” “analysis data,” “identifying data,” and “additional data.” Ex. 1001, 34:47–35:11. Petitioner relies on Levy’s broadcaster ID as both (1) “data that identifies a source of the data stream” because it identifies the broadcaster and (2) “third party encoded data” because it originates from outside of Levy’s user device and is embedded with the broadcast. See Pet. 49. Petitioner, however, does not explain whether the Specification of the ’806 patent indicates that “data that identifies a source of the data stream” and the “third party encoded data” can refer to the same data. See id. at 48–49. Petitioner also does not explain further if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the asserted “data that identifies a source of the data stream” and the “third party encoded data” can be the same data. See id. Additionally, Petitioner argues that “Levy teaches finding, extracting, and decoding ‘identifiers’—including a ‘broadcaster ID.’” Pet. 48–49. Claim 5 requires “determining . . . data that identifies a source of the data stream through analysis of said data stream” and “extracting at least third party encoded data obtained from the data stream.” Ex. 1001, 34:47–35:11. By reciting another step for another type of data, claim 5 indicates by its own words that “third party data” has some difference with “data that identifies a source of the data stream.” See id.; see also Pet. 5 (arguing that “[t]erms not expressly construed should be given their plain and ordinary meaning”). “broadcaster ID” identifies the source, is encoded, and can originate from a third party, the arguments presented in the Petition and the cited evidence do not sufficiently persuade us that Levy’s finding, extracting, and decoding the broadcaster ID discloses, or that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand discloses, both the steps of “determining, using at least one processor, data that identifies a source of the data stream obtained through analysis of said data stream” and “extracting at least third party encoded data obtained from the data stream.” See Pet. 48–49; Ex. 1001, 34:47–58. The presented arguments and cited evidence may be sufficient for one step, but not both. Moreover, even if one of ordinary skill in the art understood that Levy’s broadcaster ID could be both “data that identifies a source of the data stream” and “third party encoded data,” Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently how Levy analyzes the asserted third party code to generate analysis data that includes at least an identifying data, as required by claim 5. The relied-upon portions of Levy do not disclose analyzing the broadcaster ID (i.e., the alleged third party encoded data). Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 13–15, 22, 26, 55, 56, 65, 68, Fig. 1. Petitioner does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would understand forwarding broadcaster ID with context information to a server discloses the step of “analyzing” third party encoded data. See Pet. 50–53. Petitioner also does not provide an interpretation of “analyzing” that supports the argument. See id. at 5–6, 50–53; see also Prelim. Resp. 38–39 (responding that Petitioner’s anticipation challenges lack particularity).” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“proceeding.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), in determining whether to institute an inter partes review, “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.” In evaluating the exercise of discretion to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining 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 the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying the two-part framework, we consider several non- exclusive factors, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”). Factors (a), (b), and (d) of the Becton, Dickinson factors 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 that art or arguments. Id. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. 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 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a B.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or a related field), and approximately three years of experience working in the communications- or Internet-related industries, or, alternatively, an advanced degree (such as a master’s degree) in computer science or electrical engineering (or a related field).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). Petitioner also argues that “more education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). Patent Owner neither addresses Petitioner’s” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes an interpretation for “media segment” with citations to the record. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:18–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42, 43). Patent Owner provides a response. Prelim. Resp. 53–54. At this stage, because determining whether Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing does not depend on a particular interpretation for any claim term, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy);” slip op. at 10
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,294,806 - Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2020 · PGR2020-00009 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR challenging claims 1–22, finding substantially the same art and arguments had been presented to the Office and no material error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In evaluating matters under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining 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 the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining 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 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” But even when a petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to one or more claims, institution of review remains discretionary. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018) (“[Section] 314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question whether to institute review . . . .” (emphasis omitted)); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). In exercising that discretion, we are guided by the statutory requirement, in promulgating regulations for post-grant review, to consider the effect of any regulations on “the efficient administration of the Office [and] the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings,” 35 U.S.C. § 326(b), as well as the requirement to construe our rules to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Office guidance, issued June 5, 2018, also explains that the Board “will evaluate the challenges and determine whether § 325(d) is sufficiently” slip op. at 28
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,478,450 - Nitro Fluids, L.L.C. v. Cameron International CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2019 · IPR2019-00804 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the rehearing request and maintained denial of institution for claims 1–15 under § 325(d) based on Kajaria and Guidry.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request 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. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part) and determined that the balance of these factors favored denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Dec. 11–23. As part of this analysis, we determined that: Kajaria was previously presented to the office during prosecution and was the basis for a rejection by the Examiner; Petitioner and the Examiner relied on the same disclosures of Kajaria to support their arguments; Petitioner did not sufficiently point out how the Examiner erred in his evaluation of Kajaria; and the declaration testimony of Mr. Ely did not warrant reconsideration of the prior art previously analyzed by the Examiner. Id. at 12–22.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other
“fracturing tree, wherein the single outlet is coupled to the fracturing tree by a single fluid conduit that is the only fluid conduit connecting the skid apparatus in fluid communication with the well at which the one fracturing tree is positioned. Ex. 1001, 7:6–30.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successOther
“obviousness ground relies solely on modification of distribution modules 42. Req. Reh’g 14. According to Petitioner, the Petition specifically alleges that “it would have been obvious to modify any module, including specifically module 40, to use a single manifold, to support only a single valve group, for delivery of fluid to a single well, via a single fluid conduit.” Id. (citing Pet. 35–42, 49–52, 56–57; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 92, 96, 99, 102, 103, 122, 124–126, 128, 138). We did not misunderstand or misapprehend this argument; indeed, we noted its logical appeal. Dec. 21 n.10. We instead declined to credit the inference underpinning this argument, i.e., that a single-manifold embodiment would use a single fluid conduit, because the only reference of record having a single distribution module coupled to a single manifold had two fluid conduits extending from the distribution module to the well. Id. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misunderstood or overlooked Petitioner’s obviousness arguments.” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,903,190 - ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Fractus, S.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 4, 2019 · IPR2018-01457 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied ZTE’s rehearing request and left institution denied, finding no abuse of discretion under § 325(d) or § 314(a).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing of a petition decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party seeking rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner appears to limit the inquiry to evaluation of the prior art by a particular examiner, namely the ’069 examiner. However, § 325(d) provides that “the Director may take into account whether . . . the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (emphasis added). Moreover, the Becton Dickinson factors are non-exclusive, and factor 4 considers, “the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection.” Becton Dickinson at 17 (emphasis added). Neither Section 325(d) nor Becton Dickinson appears to limit the inquiry to a particular examiner as Petitioner argues. Consideration of the asserted prior art by the Office during previous examination of the patent at issue or closely related patents is, therefore, a relevant consideration under Section 325(d).” slip op. at 5
- Other 314aDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ Joint Notice Regarding Scheduling Conference from the district court litigation appears to indicate that the case is going forward. We further note that district court has completed claim construction. See Ex. 2038. As such, our reasoning from the Decision regarding section 314(a) remains sound. See Dec. 16 (stating that we were “persuaded that granting institution would have the Board consider the same prior art and essentially identical evidence and arguments already under consideration in the Texas District Court Case. Given these circumstances, our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) falls in favor of denying institution.”). In its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner has not presented any persuasive evidence or arguments to demonstrate that our exercise of discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law or on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors, or misapprehended or overlooked a significant fact.” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,976,069 - ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Fractus, S.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 2, 2019 · IPR2018-01455 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution under § 325(d) and § 314(a).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“petition decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party seeking rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for patent owner
“similarities and differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; and (2) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination. Becton, Dickinson at 17– 18. Here, Petitioner concedes that the art asserted in the Petition, namely Misra I, Misra II, and Grangeat, was involved in the prior PTO reexamination proceedings, but argues that the asserted art was considered in a substantially different way than presented in the Petition. Req. Reh’g 8. The manner in which a petitioner relies on the prior art, however, is considered as part of Becton Dickinson factor 4 (the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which a petitioner relies on the prior art or a patent owner distinguishes the prior art), not factors 1 and 2. We do not agree that the Board was unreasonable in determining that factors 1 and 2 weighed in favor of denying institution, given that the art asserted in the Petition was also presented and considered in the reexamination proceedings.” slip op. at 4
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDecided for patent owner
“litigation is stayed. Opp. 1. Patent Owner advises, “on March 15, 2019, the court issued a claim construction order reaffirming the earlier construction of the terms relevant to the present proceeding. Id. (citing Ex. 2028, passim). Patent Owner argues, “the claim construction order evidences the new court’s clear intent to proceed with the case.” Id. Patent Owner also advises that “[o]n April 12, 2019, the parties submitted a Joint Notice Regarding Scheduling Conference (1) requesting a trial date predating any conclusion to an instituted IPR, (2) confirming that fact discovery has completed, and (3) requesting a close to expert discovery on May 31, 2019.” Id. (citing Ex. 2029, 1–3). The parties’ Joint Notice Regarding Scheduling Conference from the district court litigation appears to indicate that the case is going forward. See Ex. 2029. We further note that district court has completed claim construction. See Ex. 2028. As such, our reasoning from the Decision regarding section 314(a) remains sound. See Dec. 20 (stating that we were “persuaded that granting institution would have the Board consider the same prior art and essentially identical evidence and arguments already under consideration in the Texas District Court Case. Given these circumstances, our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) falls in favor of denying institution.”).” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,394,432
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.