- PTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00607 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–4 because the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“As discussed above, Fintiv factors 2, 3, and 5 favor denial. Factor 1 is neutral, and only factor 4 weighs against denial. Thus, we determine that the first five Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial, and we now assess compelling merits. CommScope, Paper 23 at 5 (“In circumstances where, however, the Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors 1–5 favors denial of institution, the Board shall then assess compelling merits.”). According to the Guidance Memo, the compelling merits standard is met when “the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo, 4. A challenge can only meet this standard “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021- 01064, Paper 102 at 49 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2022) (precedential) (“OpenSky”). We note that the Guidance Memo does not change the statutory standard for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Instead, a determination of compelling merits will outweigh the other Fintiv factors, and such challenges will be allowed to proceed even if a district court litigation is proceeding in parallel. Id.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“For the reasons that follow, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“c. Summary In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner’s obviousness challenges based on Lee do not meet the compelling merits standard with respect to claim 1. Petitioner does not rely on Kim to teach the recited “predetermined time from the transmission of the deactivation message.” See Pet. 34–37, 48–55 (relying on Kim for limitation “stopping downlink (DL) transmission of the secondary carrier and initializing uplink (UL) and DL retransmission buffers after transmitting the deactivation message”). Claims 2–4 depend from claim 1. Petitioner’s contentions regarding these dependent claims rely on the same analysis for the limitation of claim 1 discussed above. See Pet. 55, 57, 60. Accordingly, we also determine that Petitioner’s obviousness challenges based on Lee do not meet the compelling merits standard with respect to claims 2–4.” slip op. at 30
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,144,106 - PTAB · Sep 3, 2024 · IPR2024-00608 · APJ Amber L Hagy · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–4 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the Lee-Kim obviousness challenge lacked compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–5. As discussed above, factor 1 is neutral, factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution, and factor 4 weighs slightly against discretionary denial. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence of record on factors 1–5 favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. Accordingly, following CommScope, we must address the merits of the Petition to determine whether they are compelling. The Guidance Memo states that “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges are those in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo, 4. A challenge can meet this standard only “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021- 01064, Paper 102 at 49 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2022) (precedential) (“OpenSky”). The Guidance Memo does not change the statutory standard for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Instead, a determination of compelling merits will outweigh the other Fintiv factors, and such challenges will be allowed to proceed even if a district court litigation is proceeding in parallel. Id.” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). 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 “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See 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.”). For the reasons that follow, we exercise our discretion to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“As noted above, our inquiry is directed to whether the Petition meets the compelling merits standard, not the “reasonable likelihood” standard of § 314(a). On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. Claim 1 recites “changing the secondary carrier to a deactivation state based on a predetermined time from the transmission of the deactivation message.” To illustrate, Figure 10 of the ’662 patent is reproduced below. Figure 10 is a diagram of a carrier state management method. Ex. 1001, 4:49–50. The ’662 patent teaches that “the base station performs the step . . . of transmitting the deactivation message to the terminal at a time t1.” Id. at 13:50–52. The ’662 patent further teaches that “[t]he base station may perform the step . . . of changing state information for a secondary carrier that is managed by the base station to the deactivation state at a time t5 after the lapse of a predetermined time (t5–t1).” Id. at 13:60–63. As discussed above, Petitioner argues that Lee’s disconnection time corresponds to the recited “predetermined time.” Pet. 43. To satisfy the limitation of claim 1 under this theory, Petitioner must show that Lee’s disconnection time is the time from the transmission of the AAI_CM-CMD” slip op. at 30
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,565,662 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. California Institute Of TechnologyInstitution deniedPTAB · May 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00133 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under Fintiv because the advanced parallel litigation outweighed the stipulation, and the petition did not present compelling merits for any challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“The district court has already denied a motion for a stay, and the reasoning in its decision on the motion indicates that the court is unlikely to grant a renewed motion. See Ex. 2002, 5–6 (finding that the advanced stage of the underlying litigation disfavors a stay and that a stay is unlikely to simplify the issues in the underlying litigation). Thus, we find that this factor weighs in favor of exercising authority to deny institution. See Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6–7.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree that Kobayashi provides scant details on the operation of its outer encoder, which Petitioner attempts to fill in with expert testimony on Hamming coders and matrix multiplication generally. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28– 35, 65. Patent Owner, on the other hand, provides argument based on Kobayashi’s disclosure and Petitioner’s own characterization of that disclosure that appears, on this record, to contradict Petitioner’s arguments. Even if, hypothetically, we were to deem Petitioner’s showing on the record before us to be adequate under the lesser reasonable likelihood standard (again, a finding we do not make), we apply a higher compelling merits standard for our analysis of the sixth Fintiv factor, and find Petitioner has not met that higher standard. In short, on the record before us, for the reasons noted above, we do not view Petitioner’s evidence as plainly leading to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. See Interim Procedure 4. We, therefore, find Petitioner’s showing as to the independent claims is not compelling.” slip op. at 31
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,421,032 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. California Institute Of TechnologyInstitution deniedPTAB · May 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00130 · APJ Amber L Hagy · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 314(a), finding the advanced parallel litigation outweighed the stipulation and the merits were not compelling.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“The district court has already denied a motion for a stay, and the reasoning in its decision on the motion indicates that the court is unlikely to grant a renewed motion. See Ex. 2002, 5–6 (finding that the advanced stage of the underlying litigation disfavors a stay and that a stay is unlikely to simplify the issues in the underlying litigation). Thus, we find that this factor weighs in favor of exercising authority to deny institution. See Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6–7.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“In short, on the record before us, for the reasons noted above, we do not view Petitioner’s evidence as plainly leading to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. See Interim Procedure 4. We, therefore, find Petitioner’s showing as to the independent claims is not compelling. Petitioner’s arguments for the dependent claims and the other grounds (including the ground based on the combination with McEliece) (Pet. 19–56) do not cure the above deficiencies. Thus, Petitioner’s showing of unpatentability is not compelling for any of the challenged claims under any of the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 29
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,116,710 - 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
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.