- Nokia Of America Corporation / Ericsson Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 2, 2022 · IPR2022-00755 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and that the challenges to claims 14–19 were not compelling.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Accordingly, this factor weighs heavily in favor of exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In sum, we find that Petitioner’s arguments, and Dr. Fuja’s cited testimony, are not compelling. Accordingly, Petitioner’s showing as to independent claim 14 is less than a “compelling, meritorious challenge[].” In addition, claims 15–19 depend from claim 14, and Petitioner’s arguments for these dependent claims do not cure the above deficiencies for independent claim 14. Pet. 26– 31. Likewise, Petitioner’s arguments for dependent claims 15 and 18 for the remaining ground (Kotecha combined with R1-081126) do not cure the above deficiencies for independent claim 14. Pet. 31–34. Thus, Petitioner’s showing of unpatentability is not compelling for any of the challenged claims for any of the asserted grounds. VII. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition. VIII. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot reached
“We find that Petitioner’s arguments are not compelling. First, we have doubts as to whether Kotecha (i) teaches a scheme “which utilizes a CQI trigger, a particular MCS value, and other fields present in the uplink grant” or (ii) “encourages [one of ordinary skill in the art] to use fields in addition to the MCS field.” Pet. 23–24. Rather, it appears that Kotecha teaches in its discussion regarding using a CQI trigger and a particular MCS value that “different fields, other than the MCS field, may be reused according to [Kotecha’s] disclosure to clearly signal whether an uplink grant is for only CQI or CQI and data.” See Ex. 1004, 4:23–43 (emphasis added). Hence, Kotecha teaches using other fields in lieu of—not in addition to—the MCS field. Id. Moreover, Kotecha’s teachings regarding using “one or more fields” to indicate only CQI or CQI and data identify the CQI request and MCS fields, as examples, without identifying additional fields, nor requiring the use of these fields. See id. at 7:19–22, 8:15–20, Fig. 6. Thus, these teachings also do not provide compelling support for Petitioner’s arguments that Kotecha encourages adding a third field to the CQI request and MCS fields combination. Id. Second, we find uncompelling Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to try using the . . . (RB) assignment field as a further indication of whether to multiplex CQI with data,” which “is one of only seven other possible fields for [one of ordinary skill in the art] to consider.” Pet. 25. This argument is premised on Kotecha encouraging using a third field—and only a third field—in addition to the CQI request and MCS fields, which, as we discuss above, Kotecha does not. Rather, choosing any three, for example, of the nine fields in the uplink grant would yield 84 possible combinations. See Ex. 1004, 1:25–34 (listing nine fields); Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (testifying that “Kotecha identifies nine fields in the uplink grant”). Yet more combinations are possible if combinations having other numbers of fields are employed. “[T]he breadth of these choices and the numerous combinations indicate that these disclosures would not have rendered the claimed invention obvious to try.” Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Rolls–Royce PLC v. United Techs. Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Nor does Petitioner cite to any guidance provided in Kotecha about which combinations of fields would likely be successful in arguing that the claimed three field combination would have been obvious to try. See In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]here a defendant merely throws metaphorical darts at a board filled with combinatorial prior art possibilities, courts should not succumb to hindsight claims of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Third, we do not find compelling Dr. Fuja’s cited testimony, which in our view, and taken as a whole, risks using impermissible hindsight to reconstruct the invention of claim 14. See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” (citation omitted)). For example, the testimony appears to be predicated incorrectly on Kotecha teaching using a third field (i.e., the resource assignment field) in addition to the CQI request and MCS fields, and the testimony instead tracks the claimed three field combination of claim 14. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–79. Moreover, Dr. Fuja opines that “it would have been obvious for [one of ordinary skill in the art] to use the resource assignment field in the uplink grant in addition to the CQI request bit and the MCS field because doing so provides additional flexibility and greater efficiency at no additional cost.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. We find this testimony to be conclusory as there is no factual support underlying Dr. Fuja’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to be obvious. Id. ¶¶ 77–83. Also, claim 14 recites more than just reusing the resource assignment field to indicate whether data should be multiplexed with the CQI report. Ex. 1001, 24:7–14. Rather, claim 14 also recites evaluating whether the indicated number of resource blocks “is smaller than or equal to a determined number of resource blocks.” Id. Kotecha does not teach this, nor does Dr. Fuja address it in a compelling way. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–83.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,385,239 - Ericsson Inc. / Nokia Of America Corporation v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 2, 2022 · IPR2022-00725 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–6 and 11–16 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the challenges were not compelling.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“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.”); 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board has held that the advanced state of a parallel district court action is a factor that may weigh in favor of denying a petition under § 314(a). See NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential); Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 58 & n.2 (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”)2. We consider the following factors to assess “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding”: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’000 patent claims a filing date before March 16, 2013, the effective date of the relevant amendment, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf. 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). In evaluating these factors, we “take[] a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“implemented by a base station. As Petitioner points out, Classon describes a multicarrier communications system that includes a “base site” and “receiving platforms” (also referred to as “transmission targets”), which we find are a base station and mobile stations. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1005, code (57), ¶¶ 23, 27, 28, 31, Fig. 4). The parties dispute whether Classon (in light of the background knowledge of a skilled artisan or, in light of TR 25.858) teaches transmitting control information indicating whether a mobile station is to transmit one channel quality indicator (CQI) for each subcarrier block within a communication frequency band or one CQI for all subcarrier blocks within the communication frequency band instead of multiple CQIs for multiple subcarrier blocks within the communication frequency band, as recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claim 11). For the reasons given below, the case Petitioner advances is less than compelling.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Patent Owner’s argument has merit. Paragraphs 37–40 of Classon describe the base station determining what mode to use for communication based on the information (including CQI information) sent by the mobile units. Paragraph 41 states that “such channel quality information will preferably already be available to the base site” but that, if it is not available, “the base site can transmit 73 a message to the relevant transmission target or targets and request a reply that includes the relevant channel quality information.” Also, paragraph 41 states that “[w]ays in which such information can be provided to the base site will be described below in more detail.” This appears to be a reference to Classon’s description of the mobile stations, not the base station, determining that they are of “type 1” or “type 2” and sending channel quality information to the base station based on that determination, after which the base station determines whether to use the first mode or second mode in communications. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45–51. Thus, rather than supporting Petitioner’s position, the context around paragraph 41 appears in friction with that position. Petitioner does not explain how the base station determines a transmission mode (and thus a requested amount of CQI information) without first having that information from the mobile stations. Instead, it is reasonable to read paragraph 41 as requesting of the mobile stations information that the mobile stations deem appropriate; in other words, that the mobile stations determine whether to send a CQI value for each subcarrier or information on average channel quality. Even if it is sufficient to go forward on a theory that Classon implicitly teaches the claimed control message, the evidence Petitioner advances for this position is not compelling.” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“III. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(D) Petitioner argues that we should not deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 56. Patent Owner argues that we should. Prelim. Resp. 23– 28. Because we deny the Petition for other reasons, we do not reach whether we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under § 325(d).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,137,000 - Ideavillage Products Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.VInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2021-00116 · APJ Ken B Barrett · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because eight grounds failed the threshold showing and the remaining lack-of-ornamentality ground was marginal, making trial inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Here, Petitioner advances nine challenges against the claim of the ’346 patent. Pet. 8. As discussed above, we determine that, on this record, Petitioner has not met its burden for institution under eight grounds—an on-sale bar ground, six obviousness grounds, and an indefiniteness ground. Additionally, we determine that the ninth ground— the challenge based on the alleged lack of ornamentality—is marginal, at 5 We acknowledge that SAS and Harmonic address inter partes reviews, but see no reason to interpret differently § 324(a), the statute governing post-grant reviews. 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial. 7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf best. Based on the particular facts of this proceeding, instituting a trial with respect to all grounds based on evidence and arguments directed only to the one ornamentality ground would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. Cf. Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9, 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Thus, we do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 26
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Under the Office Guidance, “if the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB will institute on all challenges raised in the petition.” Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26, 2018).6 When a petition fails to satisfy the “more likely than not” institution standard as to some challenges, the Board evaluates “all the challenges and determine[s] whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system, the entire petition should be denied.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide7 64 (Nov. 2019) (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 316(b), 326(b)). Here, Petitioner advances nine challenges against the claim of the ’346 patent. Pet. 8. As discussed above, we determine that, on this record, Petitioner has not met its burden for institution under eight grounds—an on-sale bar ground, six obviousness grounds, and an indefiniteness ground. Additionally, we determine that the ninth ground— the challenge based on the alleged lack of ornamentality—is marginal, at 5 We acknowledge that SAS and Harmonic address inter partes reviews, but see no reason to interpret differently § 324(a), the statute governing post-grant reviews. 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial. 7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf best. Based on the particular facts of this proceeding, instituting a trial with respect to all grounds based on evidence and arguments directed only to the one ornamentality ground would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. Cf. Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9, 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Thus, we do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The POSITA relating to the subject matter of the D’346 patent would possess [a] Bachelor’s degree in industrial design (or a related or equivalent field) and at least ten (10) years of research or work experience related to designing, developing, specifying, testing or analyzing multi-component consumer products (or supervising the same), with experience related to handheld consumer electronic products. Pet. 14. For purposes of this decision, we assume Petitioner is referring to the designer of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1216 (CCPA 1981) (“In design cases we will consider the fictitious person identified in § 103 as ‘one of ordinary skill in the art’ to be the designer of ordinary capability who designs articles of the type presented in the application.”). Patent Owner has not filed a preliminary response and therefore, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the designer of ordinary skill in the art. Based on the limited record in front of us, we determine that Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the designer of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“incorrect standard, but also lacks credibility because it is internally inconsistent with other parts of his testimony. Mr. Fletcher testifies that it is his understanding that indefiniteness is viewed through the perspective of the ordinary observer, stating the following: I understand that an ordinary observer must be able to understand the scope of an invention with reasonable certainty. If not, a design is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. It is my understanding that errors and inconsistencies between drawings of a design patent can be indefinite, and thus invalid, if an ordinary observer cannot discern the overall appearance of the claimed design without resorting to conjecture or speculation. Ex. 1003 ¶ 27 (emphasis added). However, his opinions regarding indefiniteness all are in terms of the “POSITA.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–58; see, e.g., id. ¶ 32 (“The D’346 Patent is indefinite due to the inclusion of conflicting views, which would prevent a POSITA from understanding the claimed design as drawn. . . . A POSITA cannot discern from the D’346 Patent figures what design is actually being claimed.”). Casting further doubt on the reliability of his testimony, Mr. Fletcher does not articulate any definition for the POSITA, which is a necessary foundation for his opinions.4 Mr. Fletcher does not refer to the perspective of the ordinary observer (or even one skilled in the art, viewing the design as would an ordinary observer) in his opinions regarding indefiniteness (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32– 58), and we decline to assume his references to the unadorned “POSITA” implicitly encompass the perspective of the ordinary observer. Thus, Mr. Fletcher’s testimony regarding indefiniteness is unhelpful because it utilizes the incorrect perspective.” slip op. at 20
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips - Netscout Systems, Inc. v. Longhorn HD LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 10, 2022 · IPR2021-01258 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds and claims, finding no reasonable likelihood for at least claims 1–11 and that trying all 12 claims would be inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The problem with Petitioner’s contention is that limitation 1[f] does not require an “anomaly detector” to detect anomalous correlations between input vectors, but instead, an “anomaly detector . . . to detect anomalous correlations between individual ones of said clusters.” Ex. 1001, 10:66– 11:3. In this regard, the’846 patent’s specification discloses [o]nce sufficient data has be stored in the database, multi-dimensional vectors can be constructed and reduced from the stored data. The reduced multi-dimensional vectors can be processed using one or more conventional multi-variate analysis methods and the output sets produced by the multi-variate analysis methods can be correlated against one another according to one or more selected metrics. Id. at 4:34–40; see also id. at 9:15–19 (“Once, the reduced vectors have been processed by the multiple clustering methodologies in block 270, one or more metrics can be selected in block 280 for purposes of establishing a correlation between the output sets of the processed reduced multi-dimensional vectors.”). In contrast, the portions of Rhodes relied upon by Petitioner to address the argued limitation disclose that Rhodes detects anomalous behavior based on a correlation between input vectors, i.e., a “‘comparison function’ to measure ‘how different two vectors are.’” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1004, 3); see also id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1004, 8 (“The most obvious measure of vector similarity is somehow aggregating the differences among their several coordinates.”).” slip op. at 17
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Here, the Petition challenges 12 claims of the ’846 patent. Pet. 1. As discussed above, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing with respect to its challenges to at least 11 of these claims. Were we to institute review, the resulting trial would nonetheless go forward on all 12 claim challenges. We find that instituting trial, therefore, would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. Consequently, we exercise our discretion to deny institution of the entire Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314.10” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and evidence of record to reach a decision on institution. See Nidec Motor Corp. 8 The Petition in this case was accorded a filing date of August 11, 2021. See Paper 3, 1. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “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 10
- 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). The prior art itself may be sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See 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”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Thus, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,260,846 - Lumenis Be Ltd. v. BTL Healthcare Technologies A.S.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · IPR2021-01275 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution, finding the petition deficient on most challenged claims and declining review because it could at best succeed on two of fourteen claims and two of three grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“On the current record, we find Petitioner’s contentions that the skilled artisan would have had “two or more” years of experience to be too vague as it encompasses skill levels beyond the proposal level without a defined limit. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s proposal except we do not adopt the “or more” terminology above. We determine that with our changes Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’321 patent Specification and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“C. Claim Construction We construe the challenged claims by applying the standard used in federal courts, in other words, “the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b),” which is articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Neither party seeks claim construction other than the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms. See Pet. 9; see generally Prelim. Resp.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“to deny a petition “even when the petition includes at least one claim subject to a challenge that otherwise meets the criteria for institution.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide11 at 64; see also 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019). The Petition consists of challenges to fourteen claims, each challenged under at least two different grounds of unpatentability, and a total of three grounds of unpatentability. See Pet. 6. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating (1) obviousness of claims 1–7 and 10–14 over Simon alone; (2) obviousness of claims 1–7 and 10–14 over the combination of Burnett ’870 and Magstim; and (3) obviousness of claims 10–14 over the combination of Simon and Burnett ’870. See supra §§ III.D–III.E. Assuming without deciding that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that claims 8 and 9 would have been obvious over Simon alone or Simon and Burnett ’870, Petitioner at best could succeed in two of fourteen challenged claims and in two of three grounds. Under the circumstances presented—where 11 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. grounds even though Petitioner could at best succeed in two of fourteen challenged claims and in two of three grounds—we determine it would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources to institute review. See Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10– 11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); see also Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Accordingly, we exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to decline to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Upon consideration of Burnett ’870, including Burnett ’870’s description of “activating two coils ‘differentially’” and the disclosures of Magstim relied on by Petitioner, we are not persuaded that they support using two capacitors or energy storage devices. Instead, the disclosures of Burnett ’870, Burnett ’185, and Magstim are consistent with Patent Owner’s assertions that the Petition demonstrates a teaching of only a single capacitor.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,632,321 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00661 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review for claims 1 and 2 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors weighed against review because of the advanced, overlapping ITC investigation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“The Fintiv factors “relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6. A stay of parallel litigation pending resolution of a Board proceeding “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Id. That the E.D.N.Y. case was stayed “at its earliest stage,” however, does not “allay[] concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts” in view of the 1220 investigation. Additionally, the E.D.N.Y. case was stayed “pending completion” of the 1220 investigation, not because of any Board proceeding. Ex. 3002, 1. With dates set in the 1220 investigation for the ALJ’s initial determination and the ITC’s final determination, a stay seems highly unlikely, especially with the initial determination date about a week away. Hence, factor (1) weighs against institution. See Fitbit, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., IPR2020-00771, Paper 14 at 16–17 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2020).” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). But we have discretion to deny a petition even when a petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” threshold standard for instituting trial. See, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached
“essentially the same argument about the ’557 patent’s effective filing date for its challenge based on Nakamura-959 and Nakamura-949 as for its invalidity defense based on insufficient written-description support for claim 1. See Pet. 7, 12–21, 37; Ex. 2004, 29–33; Ex. 2005, 245–48; Ex. 2014, 64–65, 70. As we understand the arguments, resolving the ’557 patent’s effective filing date does not require interpreting any part of § 1.57. See Pet. 12–21; Prelim. Resp. 29–31. Instead, the issue turns on whether the ’154 application supports claim 1 according to § 112’s first paragraph. See Pet. 12–21; Prelim. Resp. 29–31. Also, the challenges based on Tanda present a similar issue whether the ’447 provisional supports claim 1 according to § 112’s first paragraph. See Pet. 12–21, 61; Prelim. Resp. 29–31, 36–37. “[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Under the circumstances here, the ITC can apply the test for sufficiency of disclosure to the ’154 application and the ’447 provisional just as well as the Board.” slip op. at 27
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,658,557 - Decurtis LLC v. Carnival CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00782 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–18 and 20 and declining to reach claim 19.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) for the ʼ184 patent is a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related subject matter, plus at least two years of professional experience in the field of computer networks, wireless communications, or a similar field. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–43). Petitioner elaborates that “more experience would compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not provided an assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is supported by the Almeroth Declaration and is consistent with the ’184 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“B. CLAIM INTERPRETATION The Petition explains that “Petitioner and its expert have applied the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms of the challenged claims.” Pet. 8. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not propose any explicit claim constructions. We do not discern a need to construe expressly any claim language. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“limitation 1[d] means Barry inherently discloses limitation 1[d], Petitioner also does not support that position. Establishing inherent disclosure of a limitation requires showing that the limitation necessarily results from the prior art disclosure. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.”). Petitioner does not allege or demonstrate that a “unique identifier of a portable guest device” necessarily results from the disclosure of Soleimani’s paragraph 175, much less that such an identifier is necessarily associated with location and a timestamp. As noted above, the Petition states that “[i]dentifiers may be associated with location and timestamp.” (Pet. 26 (emphasis added)). Because Petitioner does not support its position that “Barry discloses” limitations 1[d] and 7[d] and does not argue that limitations 1[d] and limitation 7[d] would have been obvious, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Patent argues that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references’ teachings. Patent Owner first argues that Petitioner has not demonstrated a motivation to combine Berg with Soleimani. Prelim. Resp. 31–33. Patent Owner then argues that Petitioner has not demonstrated a motivation to modify Soleimani with the teachings of Brulé. Id. at 34. With respect to this issue, weighing the parties’ arguments, we see some merit in Petitioner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Soleimani, Berg, and Brulé. We do not further address the merits of Petitioner’s challenge to claim 19. As explained below in Section III, given that Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to nearly all of the challenged claims, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,045,184 - Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Company / Helmerich & Payne Technologies, LLC et al. v. Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 21, 2021 · IPR2021-00621 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on at least 18 claims, and review of all 19 would be inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“the monitored toolface angle, in and of itself, is indicative of a difference between the actual and desired toolface orientations as required by limitation 1[a]. Although Petitioner and Mr. Sharma point to comparing the monitored toolface angle with the tool face angle selected to achieve a desired trajectory for the bore hole, they do not identify any such comparison disclosed in Haci. Nor do they identify adequately any disclosure that Haci’s system displays or otherwise provides both the desired and measured toolface angles to the driller such that the measured toolface angle display, in conjunction with a desired toolface angle display, is indicative of the difference therebetween. At best, Petitioner and Mr. Sharma assert that the measured toolface angle could be used by the driller to determine the difference between the actual and desired toolface angles. Claim 1, however, requires the drilling operation parameter itself, which Petitioner maps to the measured toolface angle, to be indicative of the difference between the actual and desired toolface orientations.” slip op. at 21
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“institute review or don’t.” SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1355. When a petition fails to meet the reasonable likelihood standard as to some challenges, the Board evaluates “all the challenges and determine[s] whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system, the entire petition should be denied.” See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 64 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 316(b), 326(b)). In determining whether to institute in circumstances such as those presented here, we take into account the efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. See Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (designated informative); Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (designated informative).” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on the record, we determine that no explicit construction of terms is needed to resolve the issues presented to reach a decision on institution. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “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 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,823,655 - BJ Energy Solutions, LLC v. Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 7, 2021 · PGR2021-00060 · APJ Ryan H Flax · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show claims 1–7 likely unpatentable, and a possible § 112(a) issue for claims 8–9 did not justify instituting on all claims and grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“not demonstrated with particularity that it is more likely than not that most claims challenged in the petition are unpatentable under the asserted grounds. Although there is a reasonable argument that claims 8 and 9 may be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as discussed above, this analysis is applicable to only these two dependent claims under a single ground for unpatentability, leaving Petitioner’s other ten grounds insufficient regarding independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–7. As discussed above, instituting trial under these circumstances would not be an efficient use of the Board’s or the parties’ time and resources. See Chevron, IPR2018- 00923, Paper 9, 10–11; Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7, 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Our decision at this stage derives from our review of the record presented. In accordance with the Court’s decision in SAS (138 S. Ct. at 1359– 60) and Office guidance, we deny institution of a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’631 patent on any grounds alleged by Petitioner. This decision does not reflect a final determination on the patentability of any claim.” slip op. at 66
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Even when a petitioner satisfies the minimum statutory institution standard (e.g., demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to one or more claims in an inter partes review or that it is more likely than not that at least one claim is unpatentable in a post-grant review), institution of review remains discretionary. SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018); Harmonic, Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“First of all, the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). Under such circumstances, the Board takes into account other considerations, including efficiency and fundamental fairness for all parties. See Adaptics Limited v. Perfect Co., IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 at 17 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2019) (informative); Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 84 FR 64280, 53– 63 (2019) (addressing various considerations at institution phase, including efficiency and fundamental fairness for all parties).1 We conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated in the petition that it is more likely than not that challenged claims 1–7 are unpatentable under any asserted grounds for unpatentability. Although it is a closer question as to whether Petitioner has demonstrated it is more likely than not that dependent claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable based on a single asserted unpatentability ground under § 112, we determine based on the record here that instituting a trial with respect to all challenged claims under all eleven asserted grounds for unpatentability is not an efficient use of the Board’s or the parties’ time and resources. Therefore, we do not institute post-grant review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60 (requiring institution on all claims, if any); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 55 (providing guidance in view of SAS).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“to read the concept of “flush with” into the claims. We agree with Petitioner’s position that such an interpretation is not supported by the ’631 patent’s written description, which illustrates and describes two embodiments, each having a turbine engine and reduction gearbox configured to be flush with one another, but refers to only the configuration of Embodiment 1 as being “directly connected” and refers to the configuration of Embodiment 2 as being merely “connected.” See Ex. 1001, 5:27–28, 5:62–6:2, Figs. 2, 3; see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 63 (Patent Owner’s expert witness confirming there is a difference between merely “connected” and “directly connected”). Thus, the intrinsic record supports a conclusion that the concept of “directly connected” is not related to whether one component is “flush with” another component. This disclosure of the ’631 patent also illuminates the meaning of “directly connected.” As shown in Embodiment 2, something may be connected with another thing even if there are intervening components, e.g., a transmission shaft or coupling; however, as shown in Embodiment 1, the ’631 patent uses the term “directly connected” only where no such intervening components are disclosed. Ex. 1001, 5:15– 6:19, Figs. 2, 3. Besides the guidance provided with respect to the embodiments discussed above, the ’631 patent does not otherwise expressly define the term “directly connected.” See generally Ex. 1001. Thus, we consider what the ordinarily skilled artisan would consider to be its ordinary and customary meaning. In this respect, Patent Owner also uses the word “uninterrupted” to describe “directly connected.” See Prelim. Resp. 6; see also Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 61–71. We conclude based on this record that the concept of “uninterrupted” is more apt than the concept of “flush with,” and find it to be a better description for the ordinary and customary meaning of “directly connected.” For example, the ’631 patent describes, in Embodiment 1, “the turbine engine 19 is connected to the plunger pump 18.” Ex. 1001, 5:26–27 (emphasis added). However, it is without question that Embodiment 1 positions a reduction gearbox between the turbine engine and plunger pump; thus, the engine and pump may be connected, but they are not directly connected. See, e.g., Fig. 2. On the other hand, regarding this same Embodiment 1, the ’631 patent describes that “the turbine engine 19 is directly connected to an input end of the reduction gearbox 24,” and there are no components illustrated or described as being between the turbine engine and reduction gearbox. Id. at 5:28–30 (emphasis added), Fig. 3. The connection between the turbine engine and reduction gearbox shown in Embodiment 1 is more aptly described as being uninterrupted. Thus, this illuminates the meaning of “directly connected.” In view of the above, we ascribe to the term “directly connected” its ordinary and customary meaning as it would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, and we find that ordinary and customary meaning to require that the turbine engine and reduction gearbox are connected with nothing intervening there-between so that their connection is uninterrupted.” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s evidence shows that the Apollo 1 apparatus has two gearboxes and a clutch between its turbine engine and plunger pump, thus the Apollo 1 does not meet the claim limitation “the plunger pump is a plunger pump integrated with a reduction gearbox, the turbine engine is directly connected to an input end of the reduction gearbox integrated on the plunger pump.” Ex. 1001, 6:51–54. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1017 is explained by Mr. Zhang11 as having these two gearboxes and clutch, where at least one of the gearboxes and the clutch forecloses the system from having a single reduction gearbox that is both integrated on a pump and directly connected to a turbine engine. Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 8–12. Petitioner presents no evidence contradicting Mr. Zhang’s understanding of the Apollo 1 configuration and, notably never attempted to explain exactly what is shown in the above-reproduced photograph from its own Exhibit 1017, even when given the opportunity to address Mr. Zhang’s testimony in its Reply. See generally Reply.” slip op. at 50
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,865,631 - Marketdial, Inc. v. Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2021 · CBM2020-00025 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution of CBM review of claims 1–35 under Fintiv because the district court had already held the same claims invalid under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“institution decision.” Prelim. Resp. 6–7 (citing Snap, Paper 8). We agree. There will be no trial as to patent infringement because the district court already concluded that all claims of the ’916 patent are invalid under § 101. Patent Owner indicates that it will appeal that decision once the remainder of the district court case concludes. Id. at 3. The statutory deadline for a final written decision in this proceeding would be one year from institution. Under the particular factual circumstances of this case, we find that this factor strongly weighs in favor of exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached
“3 Because we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), we need not decide other issues presented by the Petition, such as whether the ’916 patent is eligible for covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptNot reached
“3 Because we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), we need not decide other issues presented by the Petition, such as whether the ’916 patent is eligible for covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 8
§ 101 eligibilityDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,571,916
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.