- Apple Inc. v. Gui Global Products, Ltd., D/B/A GweeInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 1, 2022 · IPR2021-01290 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–19 under § 314(a), applying the General Plastic factors, and denied Apple’s conditional motion for joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“patent and the Petition here involves claims 1–19. Thus, more claims are challenged here than in the 471 IPR. Nonetheless, Petitioner provides no explanation why it is again challenging claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12, 14–17, and 19 here or why Petitioner needs two instituted inter partes reviews on the common claims. Pet. 73–74. In none of its briefs does Petitioner explain “why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it [the Board] identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),” short of saying that “Gundlach (471 IPR) and Kim (this Petition) offer very different disclosures.” Explanation 3; TPG 60.8 However, Petitioner does not identify any circumstances identified in the Trial Practice Guide supporting a need for a second petition, such as a large number of claims in litigation or a potential dispute about priority date. TPG 59. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 6) that this General Plastic factor weighs in favor of denying institution of the proceeding.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“IV. DENIAL OF MOTION FOR JOINDER As stated above, the Director may join a party to an ongoing IPR only if the filed petition warrants institution under § 314. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Because we exercise discretion to deny institution under § 314, we deny Petitioner’s Conditional Motion for Joinder. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Conditional Motion for Joinder is denied.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,259,021 - Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Unification Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00940 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 15–21 and 26, exercising § 314(a) discretion because all seven General Plastic factors favored denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“We agree with UTL that Micron’s explanation for the delay between the two petitions is inadequate. Because Micron does not assert the Frank Shu presentations (Exs. 1022, 1024) as prior art, the timing of their discovery is not relevant to the delay in asserting Shu, the Trim Proposals, Ban, and Jenett in the present Petition. We also agree with UTL that Micron should have known UTL’s position on the priority date of the ’406 patent when UTL served its Initial Infringement Contentions on August 21, 2020, well before Micron filed its first petition. See Ex. 2005, 5 (contending that “claims [15–21 and 26–30] of the ’406 Patent are entitled to a priority date no later than December 6, 2006.”). Thus, any delay in UTL’s interrogatory responses in April 2021 does not adequately explain Micron’s delay in filing the current Petition.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,533,406 - Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., And Micron Technology Texas LLC v. Unification Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00941 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–5 and 8–12, finding all seven General Plastic factors favored denying the follow-on petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“General Plastic, Paper 19 at 16. The General Plastic factors “are not dispositive, but part of a balanced assessment of all relevant circumstances in the case, including the merits.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 58 (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”), https://go.usa.gov/xpvPF (citing General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15).” slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,762,658 - Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Unification Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00942 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–6 and 12–16, exercising its discretion under General Plastic because all seven factors favored denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“of institution under § 314(a) when a party files a “follow-on” petition challenging the same patent as a previous petition. See General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 15–16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential as to § II.B.4.i). These factors are as follows: 1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; 2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it; 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; 4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; 5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; 6. the finite resources of the Board; and 7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review. General Plastic, Paper 19 at 16. The General Plastic factors “are not dispositive, but part of a balanced assessment of all relevant circumstances in the case, including the merits.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 58 (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”), https://go.usa.gov/xpvPF (citing General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15).” slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,632,727 - Apple, Inc. v. Koss Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 13, 2021 · IPR2021-00693 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on the signal-strength claims and declining the duplicative remaining claims for efficiency.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Neither Seshadri nor Seshadri-818 teaches transitioning between sources of digital audio. Seshadri teaches transitioning between two types of wireless communication (e.g., from piconet to WLAN) in order for headphones (wireless headset 10) to continue communicating with the same source (e.g., cellular telephone 36) when the signal strength of the first communication type (e.g., piconet) becomes too low. Ex. 1007 ¶ 42. In another example, Seshadri teaches headset 10 transitioning between one device, wire line telephone 37, and another device, cellular telephone 36. Id. ¶ 44. However, cellular telephone 36 is connected via another path (e.g., the WLAN) to wire line telephone 37 and essentially is acting as a repeater to communicate the telephone information from its source, wire line telephone 37, to headset 10. Id. It is in this context that Seshadri teaches that “headset 10 extends the mobility of its user, extends the range of headset use and expands on headset functionality while preserving privacy and security by seeking service from base units to which it may be registered.” Id. In other words, by using cellular telephone 36 as an intermediary, headset 10 can travel farther away from wire line telephone 37, the source of the phone call, and still communicate with it. This is not, however, an example of transitioning between two sources, as required by claim 58. Wire line telephone 37 still is the only source with which headset 10 communicates in this example. Seshadri-818’s teaching is similar to this second example in Seshadri. Although Seshadri-818 describes transitioning headset 12 from one device to another (e.g., from wire line telephone 14 to cellular telephone 22) based on signal strength, the second device (cellular telephone 22) is used merely as an intermediary between headset 12 and wire line telephone 14 so that the headset can continue to communicate with the wire line telephone, the source of the data. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 11, 26, 49–50. Again, it is in the context of the second device acting as an intermediary between a headset and a single source that Seshadri-818’s invention “extends the mobility of its user, extends the range of headset use and expands on headset functionality.” Id. ¶ 26 (“Thus, a logical connection is established between the universal wireless headset 12 and the wire line telephone 14 via the cellular telephone 22 and access point 24.”). See also id. ¶¶ 11 (“[A] logical connection may be established between the new device and a host device supporting the communication,” with the benefit that “a universal wireless headset is provided that extends the mobility of the user, extends the range of the headset and expands on its functionality.”), 50 (“This enables the universal wireless headset to roam within the local area network and maintain its wireless headset functionally with one of its host devices as it roams.” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied
“The Petition further challenges claims 1–3, 5, 10, 11, 14–16, 19, 23– 25, 28, 32–36, 39, and 42. Pet. 1–2. As noted above, however, each of these claims is challenged in the ’592 IPR on nearly identical grounds. Thus, it would be a waste of resources to institute a duplicative trial on these claims when Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success in its challenges to the non-overlapping signal strength claims. Accordingly, we exercise discretion and do not institute a trial on this Petition, which Petitioner filed to challenge the signal strength claims. See supra § II.G. 5. Summary Petitioner filed this Petition to challenge the signal strength claims, claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 26, 27, 29, 31, 38, 40, 41, 44, and 58– 62. See supra § II.G; Notice 2–3. For the reasons addressed above in connection with illustrative signal strength claim 58, Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the signal strength claims. But for the signal strength claims, this Petition challenges the same claims as the ’592 petition. See supra § II.G; Notice 2–3. Accordingly, in the interest of efficiency and not duplicating the trial based on the ’592 petition, we exercise our discretion and do not institute a trial on this Petition.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“This, however, ignores Petitioner’s asserted evidence of reasons to combine the references, namely, to maintain a connection between a headset and a host while roaming within a WLAN network that is wider than the piconet that could be established between the headset and that host. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 44; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 26, 50; Ex. 1003 ¶ 103). Specifically, Petitioner relies on Seshadri’s and Seshadri-818’s similar “use-case[s] in which this transition between two different devices would be useful,” namely the examples in which a cellular phone is used as an intermediary between a headset and a wire line telephone, with the wire line telephone serving as the single source. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 44; 8 The Dissent also argues that a skilled artisan would have made the combination because the headset receiving some audio would have been better than it receiving no audio. We do not read the Petition as having made this argument. Ex. 1013 ¶ 26).9 Dr. Cooperstock repeats this reasoning in his testimony. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–105. Thus, Petitioner’s asserted evidence of reasons to combine, taken directly from the two Seshadri references, describes the benefits of maintaining the connection between a headset and a single source (i.e., the host device), and transitioning between devices to maintain that connection. Petitioner does not present persuasive evidence of reasons to transition a headset from playing digital content from one source to playing digital content from another source while roaming within a WLAN, e.g., transitioning among a phone call on a cellular phone, a podcast on a PDA, streaming music on a PC, and an audio book on a laptop computer as the user moves from room to room in their house, changing proximity of the headset to the various devices. Even Petitioner’s citation to Haupt does not provide such evidence. As noted above, Petitioner’s theory for claim limitation 58[h] (“wherein the processor is configured to, upon activation of a user-control of the headphone assembly, initiate transmission of a request to a remote, network-connected server that is in wireless communication 9 Petitioner’s argument, cited by the Dissent, that the method of Seshadri- 818’s Figure 8 “would ensure that the headset only transitions to a better connection and therefore improves audio transmission to the headset,” PO Resp. 30, is still in the context of maintaining a connection between a headset and a single source. In particular, the testimony of Dr. Cooperstock cited to support this argument continues that “[n]otably, Seshadri-818 teaches making a ‘determination’ about ‘which device, or access point, to hand the communication off to’ and discloses an example of ‘determin[ing] that device K is to facilitate the ongoing communication.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 101 (quoting Ex. 1013 ¶ 40). Paragraphs 39 and 40 of Seshadri-818 describe communication between headset 12 and device C, first using access point H, which has a logical connection to device C, and second using device K, which has a logical connection to device C. with the mobile, digital audio player”) has Seshadri’s PDA 30 and cellular telephone 36 both communicating and receiving audio files from the same server (i.e., the same source) “in the same manner as the operating element BE taught by Haupt.” Pet. 26. Here, Petitioner refers to the server, not either PDA 30 or cellphone 36, as “a source for the audio streams to which Seshadri teaches the base units 16 have access.” Id. at 26–27.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner also constructs an “alternative example” or “additional configuration” in which Haupt’s headset hands off streamed audio from one playback device to another based on signal strength, e.g., “transition[ing] from playing streaming audio (e.g., internet radio) from Seshadri’s cellphone 36 to Seshadri’s PDA 30 as the headphones/headset move out of piconet range of the cellphone 36 and into piconet range of the PDA 30.” Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 106). Petitioner’s alternative theory rests on Dr. Cooperstock’s testimony which, in turn, merely repeats the Petition’s arguments without providing any basis for the testimony. Ex. 1003 ¶ 106. Here, Petitioner appears to rely on Seshadri’s general teaching that a headset could communicate with any one of several devices (Ex. 1007 ¶ 43 (“Wireless headset 10 may establish a piconet with any one of the devices 30–37.”)); that more than one of these devices would have been capable of transmitting digital audio content to the headset (id. ¶ 67); and that Seshadri-818 includes a general teaching of transitioning from one device to another based on signal strength (Ex. 1013 ¶ 50). A user wearing the headset, then, would roam from device to device, giving the user wider range of movement. The Dissent appears to accept this reasoning.8” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,469,934 - Apple, Inc. v. Koss CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00686 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on all challenged claims because two petitions were unnecessary and the General Plastic factors did not justify the follow-on petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDenied
“To that end, the CTPG states that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CTPG 59. Thus, “multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.” Id. “Two or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary response by the patent owner) may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns.” Id. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(b)). “Nonetheless, the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation,” although even then, granting two petitions “should be rare.” See id.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Nevertheless, Petitioner’s stated reason for filing two petitions is that it could not challenge the large volume of asserted claims in one petition, not that it became aware of the prior art after filing the ’381 IPR petition. The implication is that Petitioner was ready to challenge those claims (and aware of the basis to do so) but for limitations on briefing space. As further evidence of Petitioner’s early knowledge of the prior art, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner was aware of Seshadri-818 and other references by the same inventor at least as early as January 2021, when Petitioner served invalidity contentions with those references in the District Court case. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2023). Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner was aware of Seshadri at least as early as February 22, 2021, when it filed IPR2021-00546 advancing Seshadri as a reference. Id. at 26. Logically, Petitioner would have been aware of those references even earlier, as it would have spent significant time preparing its invalidity contentions and the Petition. In light of the evidence that Petitioner likely was aware of Seshadri before the filing of the Petition in March 2021, along with Petitioner’s silence as to its knowledge, this factor weighs against institution.” slip op. at 16
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,491,982 - Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00679 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 5–8 and 11–13 because the parallel petitions were unnecessary and the General Plastic factors favored denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“To that end, the CTPG states that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CTPG 59. Thus, “multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.” Id. “Two or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary response by the patent owner) may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns.” Id. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(b)). “Nonetheless, the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, of claims in litigation,” although even then, granting two petitions “should be rare.” See id.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“As to “whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it” (General Plastic factor 2), Petitioner filed the ’305 Petition on December 23, 2020. Petitioner is silent on when it became aware of Seshadri and Seshadri-818, or whether it knew about those references before December 23. Nevertheless, Petitioner’s stated reason for filing two petitions is that it could not challenge the large volume of asserted claims in one petition, not that it became aware of the prior art after filing the ’305 Petition. The implication is that Petitioner was ready to challenge those claims (and aware of the basis to do so) but for limitations on briefing space. As further evidence of Petitioner’s early knowledge of the prior art, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner was aware of Seshadri-818 and other references by the same inventor at least as early as January 2021, when Petitioner served invalidity contentions with those references in the District Court case. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2013). Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner was aware of Seshadri at least as early as February 22, 2021, when it filed IPR2021-00546 advancing Seshadri as a reference. Id. Logically, Petitioner would have been aware of those references even earlier, as it would have spent significant time preparing its invalidity contentions and an IPR petition. In light of the evidence that Petitioner likely was aware of Seshadri and Seshadri-818 before the filing of the ’305 Petition, along with Petitioner’s silence as to its knowledge, this factor weighs against institution.” slip op. at 15
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,506,325 - Bytedance Ltd. / Tiktok Inc. v. Triller, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00774 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR for claims 11–19 under § 314(a), exercising discretion based on the General Plastic factors and the burdens of a second petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“On this record, we have some “road mapping” concerns. Although Patent Owner identifies no relevant differences between the instant Petition and the ’099 Petition, Petitioner fails to provide any explanation for why the instant Petition was filed nearly two months after receiving Patent Owner’s preliminary response in the ’099 IPR. This fact pattern is troubling because there are significant overlaps in the subject matter recited in the challenged claims and because Hozumi is a primary reference in both proceedings. But Petitioner did not have the benefit of the ’099 Institution Decision (and the concerns articulated therein) at the time it filed the instant Petition.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,691,429 - Metall Zug AG / Haag-Streit AG et al. v. Carl Zeiss Meditec AGRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 4, 2021 · IPR2020-01074 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the follow-on petition under General Plastic.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When resolving a rehearing request, the Board reviews a decision on institution “for an abuse of discretion” (37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2019)), which occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law,” “clearly erroneous factual findings,” or “a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Applying that standard, we deny the Rehearing Request.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for patent owner
“Accordingly, the Board found, “Standing alone, the sheer number of petitions (five), taken together with Petitioner’s unexplained and significant delay in filing the four follow-on petitions, supports an exercise of our discretionary denial powers.” Dec. 4. The Board supported that finding by an analysis of the factors that bear on the discretionary denial inquiry as set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential) (“General Plastic”). Dec. 4–10 (applying the General Plastic factors).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,690,330 - Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2020 · IPR2019-01584 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution of review of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 39, and 41 under its General Plastic analysis.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision on institution, we do not review the merits of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for patent owner
“petitions are only relevant if Petitioner was a party to the prior proceedings, or had a relationship with the prior petitioners. Reh’g Req. 7. But a review of the cited precedential decision does not reflect Petitioner’s suggestion. See General Plastic, Paper No. 19 at 15−19 (“Our intent in formulating the factors was to take undue inequities and prejudices to Patent Owner into account.”). General Plastic does not proscribe panels of the Board from considering whether a subsequent petitioner knew of the prior art cited in the subsequent petition at the time of filing of the first petition, per the second factor. Similarly, we are not barred, under General Plastic, from considering the length of time that elapsed between when a petitioner learned of the art and when the petition, based on that art, was filed, or whether petitioner provides an adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions, per the fourth and fifth factors. Additionally, we are not persuaded that the factors enumerated in General Plastic, as viewed through the lens of Valve Corp., must all be limited by any possible relationship between the multiple petitioners. Although the discussion of the first factor in Valve Corp. makes clear that “any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors” must be considered, the remaining factors take into account the knowledge of the second petitioner irrespective of a specific relationship. See Valve Corp., Paper 11 at 9−15. As such, the relationship between the different petitioners certainly has some bearing on what the second petitioner knew, when they knew it, and when they acted upon it, but the consideration of the second through seventh factors does not require a showing of a specific relationship between the petitioners to consider those factors.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,519,005
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.