- Panduit Corp. v. Corning Optical Communications LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 denialPatents in suitUS 10,444,456 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 9, 2021 · IPR2021-00963 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR for claims 1–11 and 13–20 under § 325(d), finding the art previously presented or substantially similar and no material Office error shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use [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 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, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential); see also 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) (listing factors to consider in evaluating the applicability of § 325(d)). With regard to whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office, the file history of the challenged ’375 patent evidences that Lim and Adar were previously presented to the Office and that Horn is substantially the same as art previously presented to the Office.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that no inter partes review as to any claim of U.S. Patent No. 10,140,375 B2 is instituted, and the Petition is denied.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,140,375 - 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
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.