- Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 26, 2017 · IPR2017-00974 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Kingston’s rehearing request, leaving in place the discretionary denial of inter partes review of claim 4 under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
RulingsRehearing decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument because we disagree with its premise—i.e., that denying inter partes review of claim 4 may result in an inconsistent application of the law. As an initial matter, Petitioner’s argument depends upon speculation about whether the panel in the 1622 IPR will determine that the subject matter of proposed, substitute claim 9 is unpatentable. Even if that becomes true, however, it would not result in an inconsistent application of the law because our denial of institution of inter partes review of claim 4 is not an affirmative determination that the subject matter of claim 4 is patentable. The denial of institution in the 1622 IPR was based on a deficiency of the petition in that case. Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd., Case IPR2016-01622, slip op. at 17, 18 (PTAB February 15, 2017) (Paper 7) (determining, with respect to claim 4, that Petitioner did not explain persuasively how and/or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed modifications to Simpson alone or in view of the teachings of the Intel Specification); see id., slip op. at 6 (PTAB April 6, 2017) (Paper 16) (denying request for rehearing). The denial of institution in this proceeding was because, inter alia, “we determine[d] that the prior art and arguments asserted in this Petition are ‘substantially the same’ as those in the first petition” (Dec. 13) and, therefore, declined to reach the merits of the Petition. In neither decision did the Board determine affirmatively that claim 4 is patentable over the prior art asserted in the respective petitions. As a result, even if the panel in the 1622 IPR later determines that proposed substitute claim 9 is unpatentable, that determination will not be inconsistent with our denial of institution of inter partes review of claim 4.” slip op. at 4
- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument because we disagree with its premise—i.e., that denying inter partes review of claim 4 may result in an inconsistent application of the law. As an initial matter, Petitioner’s argument depends upon speculation about whether the panel in the 1622 IPR will determine that the subject matter of proposed, substitute claim 9 is unpatentable. Even if that becomes true, however, it would not result in an inconsistent application of the law because our denial of institution of inter partes review of claim 4 is not an affirmative determination that the subject matter of claim 4 is patentable. The denial of institution in the 1622 IPR was based on a deficiency of the petition in that case. Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd., Case IPR2016-01622, slip op. at 17, 18 (PTAB February 15, 2017) (Paper 7) (determining, with respect to claim 4, that Petitioner did not explain persuasively how and/or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed modifications to Simpson alone or in view of the teachings of the Intel Specification); see id., slip op. at 6 (PTAB April 6, 2017) (Paper 16) (denying request for rehearing). The denial of institution in this proceeding was because, inter alia, “we determine[d] that the prior art and arguments asserted in this Petition are ‘substantially the same’ as those in the first petition” (Dec. 13) and, therefore, declined to reach the merits of the Petition. In neither decision did the Board determine affirmatively that claim 4 is patentable over the prior art asserted in the respective petitions. As a result, even if the panel in the 1622 IPR later determines that proposed substitute claim 9 is unpatentable, that determination will not be inconsistent with our denial of institution of inter partes review of claim 4.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,850,414 - Viptela, Inc. v. Fatpipe Networks Private LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 3, 2017 · IPR2017-01125 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 4–15, 19, and 22–24, exercising discretion under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) based on overlapping petitions, follow-on arguments, and inefficient use of resources.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“’684 IPR, which in turn was a “copy-cat” of the ’976 IPR petition. Prelim. Resp. 2, 5. However, in deciding whether we should exercise our discretion and decline to go forward with this Petition, our concern is not only whether “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office,” as expressed in § 325(d), but also whether other factors weigh in favor of denying institution in light of the discretion afforded to us pursuant to § 314(a).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“whether at the time of filing of the ’684 petition, Petitioner knew, or should have known, of Pearce, Zhang, and McCullough (“the Additional References”); the length of time that elapsed between learning of the Additional References, and the filing of the instant Petition; whether Petitioner has provided adequate explanation for the time lapse; whether at the time of filing of the instant Petition, Petitioner already had access to Patent Owner’s response in the ’976 IPR; and the finite resources of the Board. See Gen. Plastic Indus. at 16 (Paper 19) (informative). Petitioner provides no explanation of whether it knew or should have known of the Additional References when filing the ’684 petition; of when it first learned of these references; or of any time lapse between learning of these references and the filing of the instant Petition.” slip op. at 13
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“August 14, 2017, and a final decision is due by November 2, 2017. At this point, the decision in the ’976 IPR as to whether to see the matter through to final determination is squarely in our hands, regardless of whether any settlement is reached between the parties. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a) (“The parties may agree to settle any issue in a proceeding, but the Board is not a party to the settlement and may independently determine any question of jurisdiction, patentability, or Office practice.”). Thus, if we deem it appropriate, we can reach a final decision on the grounds presented in the ’976 IPR with or without participation from the parties in that matter. These facts weigh in favor of us exercising our discretion not to move forward with the instant Petition, at least with respect to the ’976 instituted claims insofar as Petitioner’s arguments relate to Karol and are substantially identical to those in the ’976 IPR, because the issues raised are fully briefed and ripe for a final decision in the ’976 IPR, and Petitioner’s non-participation in that proceeding is at best neutral to our analysis. Petitioner is a party to the ’684 IPR, and in that proceeding the petition is directed to the same claims of the same patent as in this Petition. This fact weighs in favor of us not moving forward with the instant Petition. Also, at least with respect to the ’684 instituted claims, insofar as Petitioner’s arguments relate to Karol and are substantially identical to those in the ’684 IPR, Petitioner has the opportunity to address the same art and arguments in the ’684 proceeding. It would be an inefficient use of Office resources, and would run counter to securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the challenges to the patentability of the ’235 patent, if we were to allow Petitioner to proceed on the same art and arguments in two separate proceedings.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits a list of terms for which Patent Owner has proposed construction in a co-pending district court case. Pet. 7–8. Petitioner, however, asserts that for the purposes of this Decision no terms need to be construed. Id. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. We reviewed the parties’ arguments, and, for the purposes of this Decision, we have determined that no terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,775,235 - Parrot S.A. / Parrot Drones, S.A.S. et al. v. Qfo Labs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 28, 2017 · IPR2017-01090 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–7 and 15–24 under § 314(a), finding the follow-on petition factors strongly favored non-institution, and dismissed the joinder motion as moot.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“The factors are intended to take into account undue inequities and prejudices to Patent Owner. Gen. Plastic, slip op. at 17. Multiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims raise the potential for abuse, such as petitioners strategically staging their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions, “using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.” Id. Consideration of these factors allows for assessing whether a petitioner should have or could have raised the new challenges earlier. Id. at 18. “[T]here may be circumstances where multiple petitions by the same petitioner against the same claims of a patent should be permitted, and that such a determination is dependent on the facts at issue in the case.” Id. We agree with Patent Owner that applying the factors from NVIDIA strongly favors exercising our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). We address each of the factors in the order presented above.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Director has discretion to institute an inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 23; 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (stating “[t]he Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition . . . 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” (emphasis added)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (stating “the Board may authorize the review to proceed on all or some of the challenged claims and on all or some of the grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim” (emphasis added)). There is no per se rule precluding the filing of follow-on petitions after the Board’s denial of one or more first-filed petitions on the same patent. The Board consistently has considered a number of factors in determining whether to exercise that discretion. See NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Case IPR2016-00134, slip op. at 6–8 (PTAB May 4, 2016) (Paper 9) (“NVIDIA”); LG Elecs. Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Case IPR2016-00986, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2016) (Paper 12); see also Xactware Sols., Inc. v. Eagle View Techs., Inc., Case IPR2017-” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, based on the circumstances of this case and our assessment that the NVIDIA factors strongly favor non-institution, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) to deny the Petition in this proceeding. Petitioners’ Motion for Joinder is also dismissed as moot. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to claims 1–7 and 15–24 of the ’532 patent, and FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,073,532 - General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki KaishaRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 6, 2017 · IPR2016-01361 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted the expanded-panel request but denied rehearing, leaving in place the discretionary denial of institution in all five follow-on petitions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“B. Requests for Rehearing A party requesting rehearing has the burden to show a decision should be modified by specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 5
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Our intent in formulating the factors was to take undue inequities and prejudices to Patent Owner into account. Thus, factor 3 is directed to Petitioner’s potential benefit from receiving and having the opportunity to study Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as our institution decisions on the first-filed petitions, prior to its filing of follow-on petitions. As discussed in our Decisions Denying Institution, we are concerned here by the shifts in the prior art asserted and the related arguments in follow-on petitions. See Dec. 11. Multiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims raise the potential for abuse. The absence of any restrictions on follow-on petitions would allow petitioners the opportunity to strategically stage their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions, using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.14 All other factors aside, this is unfair to patent 14 The Board has addressed efficiency and potential prejudice induced by multiple petitions in multiple cases. See LG Electronics, slip op. at 12 (“The Board’s resources would be more fairly expended on first petitions rather than on a followon petition like the Petition in this case.”); Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Case IPR2014-00581, slip op. at 12–13 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) (Paper 8) (“[T]he four obviousness grounds are ‘second bites at the apple,’ which use our prior decision as a roadmap to remedy Butamax’s prior, deficient challenge. owners and is an inefficient use of the inter partes review process and other post-grant review processes. Considering other factors (i.e., factors 2, 4, and 5) allows us to assess and weigh whether a petitioner should have or could have raised the new challenges earlier. We recognize that there may be circumstances where multiple petitions by the same petitioner against the same claims of a patent should be permitted, and that such a determination is dependent on the facts at issue in the case. The factors set forth above, in our view, represent a formulation of relevant considerations that permit the Board to assess the potential impacts on both the efficiency of the inter partes review process and the fundamental fairness of the process for all parties. We recognize, also, that additional factors may arise in other cases for consideration, where appropriate. However, the factors set forth above, at the very least, serve to act as a baseline of factors to be considered in our future evaluation of follow-on petitions.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“panels to authorize, an expanded panel. See generally 35 U.S.C. § 6; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.1–42.412; see also AOL Inc. v. Coho Licensing LLC, Case IPR2014-00771, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2015) (Paper 12) (“[P]arties are not permitted to request, and panels do not authorize, panel expansion.”). Our standard operating procedures, however, provide the Chief Judge with discretion to expand a panel to include more than three judges. PTAB SOP 1, 1–3 (§§ II, III) (Rev. 14); see id. at 1 (introductory language explaining that the Director has delegated to the Chief Judge the authority to designate panels under 35 U.S.C. § 6); see also In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (providing that Congress “expressly granted the Commissioner the authority to designate expanded Board panels made up of more than three Board members.”). The Chief Judge may consider panel expansions upon a “suggestion” from a judge, panel, or party in a post-grant review. Id. at 3–4; see also Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Case IPR2014-00319, slip op. at 2 n.1 (PTAB Dec. 12, 2014) (Paper 20) (expanded panel) (per curiam). The standard operating procedure exemplifies some of the reasons for which the Chief Judge may expand a panel. PTAB SOP 1, 3 (§ III.A). For example, an expanded panel may be appropriate when “[t]he proceeding or AIA Review involves an issue of exceptional importance.” Id. (§ III.A.1). In these cases, the Chief Judge has considered whether expansion is warranted, and has decided to expand the panel due to the exceptional nature of the issues presented.4 As we discuss further below, follow-on petitions have been at issue in multiple cases before the Board. The Chief Judge has determined that an expanded panel is warranted to provide a discussion of factors that are considered in the exercise of the Board’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,909,094 - Apple Inc. v. Immersion CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 17, 2017 · IPR2017-00897 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–26 under § 314(a), finding the second petition strategically delayed without persuasive justification after the Board and Patent Owner had responded to the first petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“These explanations, without more, do not justify permitting Petitioner to wait to file its Second Petition until after it has had the advantage of seeing our Decision on Institution in the First Petition. Contrary to Petitioner’s suggestion, the decision to file two separate petitions to challenge the claims asserted in the related ITC and the district court would not appear to conserve either the Board’s or the parties’ resources. Rather, it would appear to expend more resources than challenging all of the claims in one Petition. Indeed, it would appear Petitioner could have simultaneously challenged all of the claims asserted in the related ITC and district court proceedings, as the prior Petition demonstrates Petitioner knew of both the ITC and the district court actions when the prior Petition was filed. See Case IPR2016-01381, Paper 1, 1–2. Consequently, this factor also weighs against institution. Weighing the Factors for Discretionary Non-Institution Under § 314(a) We view Petitioner’s strategy in this particular case as burdensome to Patent Owner and the Board with no persuasive explanation of why it should be allowed. Petitioner does not even attempt to assert that it could not have raised the challenges in the Second Petition simultaneously with the challenges raised in the prior Petition. And we find Petitioner’s explanation of why it chose to delay filing the Second Petition unpersuasive. We do not take lightly denying a petition on grounds unrelated to its substantive patentability challenges. Nor do we hold that multiple petitions against the same claims of the same patent are never permitted. Here, however, we view the prejudice to Patent Owner to be greater than that to Petitioner. We, therefore, decline to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,773,356
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.