- Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00071 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding substantial road-mapping concerns from Masimo’s staggered petition challenging claims 6 and 7.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“has modified its prior positions to account for both arguments made in preliminary responses, as well as concerns identified by the panel in the 745 IPR decision to institute. See Prelim. Resp. 11. Claims 6 and 7 depend from claims 1 and 4. Masimo has bolstered its analysis of Markel and Mills with respect to certain elements of claim 1 and its reasons for combining the references in this second Petition. For example, Petitioner added new mappings of the Markel-Mills combination to address claim 1 in direct response to concerns identified by Patent Owner and by the panel in the 745 IPR. See id. at 11–13. Addressing limitation 1[b(i)], Petitioner added a new mapping of Markel based on pushbuttons having electrodes as shown in Figure 2 of Markel. See Pet. 51–52. Petitioner even identified this discussion of Figure 2 as “a second mapping of the claims.” Id. This second mapping of claim 1 based on Figure 2, and the corresponding analysis, appear nowhere in the analysis of claim 1 (or claim 4) in Masimo’s 745 IPR petition. The new embodiments relied on and modified arguments addressing claim 1 of the ’257 patent suggest that Petitioner is using the prior proceedings as a roadmap to address issues to its first petition in the 745 IPR. Accordingly, this factor weighs strongly in favor of invoking our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 20
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00641 · APJ Mitchell C Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under General Plastic because the factors, considered holistically, favored discretionary denial of T-Mobile’s second set of petitions.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL OF INSTITUTION Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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). Petitioner challenges the same claims on the same grounds based on the same arguments and evidence presented in the petitions in the Target IPRs. Compare IPR2022-” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the discretion of the Director to join a party to an ongoing IPR is premised on the Director’s determination that the petition warrants institution. That determination is not limited to determining whether the merits of the petition meet the reasonable likelihood threshold for at least one challenged claim. Under General Plastic, the Board may deny a petition based on the Director’s discretionary authority under § 314(a). General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15. Thus, before determining whether to join Petitioner as a party to the Target IPRs, even though the petitions are each a “me-too” petition, we first determine whether General Plastic should be applied and, if applied, whether application of the General Plastic factors warrants the exercise of discretion to deny the Petition under § 314(a).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“institute these Proceedings without first considering whether to exercise discretion under § 314(a). The statutory provision governing joinder in inter partes review proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads: If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314. Section 315(c) requires “two different decisions,” both of which are discretionary, first “whether the joinder applicant’s petition for IPR ‘warrants’ institution under § 314,” and second whether to “whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant”). Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innov., LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the discretion of the Director to join a party to an ongoing IPR is premised on the Director’s determination that the petition warrants institution. That determination is not limited to determining whether the merits of the petition meet the reasonable likelihood threshold for at least one challenged claim. Under General Plastic, the Board may deny a petition based on the Director’s discretionary authority under § 314(a). General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15. Thus, before determining whether to join Petitioner as a party to the Target IPRs, even though the petitions are each a “me-too” petition, we first determine whether General Plastic should be applied and, if applied, whether application of the General Plastic factors warrants the exercise of discretion to deny the Petition under § 314(a).” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,880,721 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00640 · APJ Mitchell C Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of the challenged proceedings under General Plastic and denied T-Mobile’s motions for joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL OF INSTITUTION Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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). Petitioner challenges the same claims on the same grounds based on the same arguments and evidence presented in the petitions in the Target IPRs. Compare IPR2022- 2 Petitioner identifies T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc. as the real parties-in-interest. Pet. 1. 3 We refer to papers and exhibits in IPR2023-00638. Substantially similar documents were filed in IPR2023-00639, IPR2023-00640, and IPR2023- 00641. This Order applies equally to all captioned proceedings. 01231, Paper 3 (Petition), 5–6, 8–73, with Pet. 5, 8–73. In each of the Target IPRs, we determined that “Petitioner . . . demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing that at least [one] claim is unpatentable” and “institute[d] an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the [challenged patents] on all grounds alleged by Petitioner.” IPR2022-01231, Paper 10 (Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review), 3; see also SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). Having already considered the merits of the challenges and evidence presented in these “me too” petitions vis-à-vis the threshold of institution for inter partes review in the Target IPRs, we determine that the Petitions in these proceedings also present a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenge of at least one claim of the challenged patents.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“Petitions are “me too” petitions and the merits of the challenges in the Target IPRs were formulated and fixed in the record on June 30, 2022, Petitioner did not receive any guidance from Patent Owner or the Board on its first set of petitions in October and December of 2022. Accordingly, any guidance provided by Patent Owner or the Board could not have influenced the content of the Petitions at issue in this proceeding. For this reason, we determine that the third General Plastic factor weighs against discretionarily denying institution.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314. Section 315(c) requires “two different decisions,” both of which are discretionary, first “whether the joinder applicant’s petition for IPR ‘warrants’ institution under § 314,” and second whether to “whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant”). Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innov., LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the discretion of the Director to join a party to an ongoing IPR is premised on the Director’s determination that the petition warrants institution. That determination is not limited to determining whether the merits of the petition meet the reasonable likelihood threshold for at least one challenged claim. Under General Plastic, the Board may deny a petition based on the Director’s discretionary authority under § 314(a). General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15. Thus, before determining whether to join Petitioner as a party to the Target IPRs, even though the petitions are each a “me-too” petition, we first determine whether General Plastic should be applied and, if applied, whether application of the General Plastic factors warrants the exercise of discretion to deny the Petition under § 314(a).” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,880,721 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00639 · APJ Mitchell C Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under General Plastic and denied T-Mobile’s motions for joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL OF INSTITUTION Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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). Petitioner challenges the same claims on the same grounds based on the same arguments and evidence presented in the petitions in the Target IPRs. Compare IPR2022-” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“second set of challenges to the patents, and upon the Target IPRs settling, Petitioner would stand in to continue proceedings that would otherwise be terminated. In effect, it would be as if Petitioner had brought the second set of challenges in the first instance. This effect is especially apparent in these particular circumstances because the original petitioner in the Target IPRs, Meta, has already been dismissed from those proceedings, and the remaining parties have jointly moved to terminate them because they have settled their dispute. The current circumstances, in which a second petition has been filed after the first was denied on the merits, are the particular circumstances that General Plastic was intended to address. General Plastic, Paper 19 at 17 (“Multiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims raise the potential for abuse.”).” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“institute these Proceedings without first considering whether to exercise discretion under § 314(a). The statutory provision governing joinder in inter partes review proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads: If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314. Section 315(c) requires “two different decisions,” both of which are discretionary, first “whether the joinder applicant’s petition for IPR ‘warrants’ institution under § 314,” and second whether to “whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant”). Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innov., LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the discretion of the Director to join a party to an ongoing IPR is premised on the Director’s determination that the petition warrants institution. That determination is not limited to determining whether the merits of the petition meet the reasonable likelihood threshold for at least one challenged claim. Under General Plastic, the Board may deny a petition based on the Director’s discretionary authority under § 314(a). General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15. Thus, before determining whether to join Petitioner as a party to the Target IPRs, even though the petitions are each a “me-too” petition, we first determine whether General Plastic should be applied and, if applied, whether application of the General Plastic factors warrants the exercise of discretion to deny the Petition under § 314(a).” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,630,234 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00638 · APJ Mitchell C Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution in IPR2023-00638 through IPR2023-00641 under General Plastic and denied the motions for joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“01231, Paper 3 (Petition), 5–6, 8–73, with Pet. 5, 8–73. In each of the Target IPRs, we determined that “Petitioner . . . demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing that at least [one] claim is unpatentable” and “institute[d] an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the [challenged patents] on all grounds alleged by Petitioner.” IPR2022-01231, Paper 10 (Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review), 3; see also SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). Having already considered the merits of the challenges and evidence presented in these “me too” petitions vis-à-vis the threshold of institution for inter partes review in the Target IPRs, we determine that the Petitions in these proceedings also present a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenge of at least one claim of the challenged patents. Notwithstanding the merits, however, Patent Owner argues that we” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the discretion of the Director to join a party to an ongoing IPR is premised on the Director’s determination that the petition warrants institution. That determination is not limited to determining whether the merits of the petition meet the reasonable likelihood threshold for at least one challenged claim. Under General Plastic, the Board may deny a petition based on the Director’s discretionary authority under § 314(a). General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15. Thus, before determining whether to join Petitioner as a party to the Target IPRs, even though the petitions are each a “me-too” petition, we first determine whether General Plastic should be applied and, if applied, whether application of the General Plastic factors warrants the exercise of discretion to deny the Petition under § 314(a).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314. Section 315(c) requires “two different decisions,” both of which are discretionary, first “whether the joinder applicant’s petition for IPR ‘warrants’ institution under § 314,” and second whether to “whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant”). Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innov., LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the discretion of the Director to join a party to an ongoing IPR is premised on the Director’s determination that the petition warrants institution. That determination is not limited to determining whether the merits of the petition meet the reasonable likelihood threshold for at least one challenged claim. Under General Plastic, the Board may deny a petition based on the Director’s discretionary authority under § 314(a). General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15. Thus, before determining whether to join Petitioner as a party to the Target IPRs, even though the petitions are each a “me-too” petition, we first determine whether General Plastic should be applied and, if applied, whether application of the General Plastic factors warrants the exercise of discretion to deny the Petition under § 314(a).” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,630,234 - Microchip Technology Inc. v. HD Silicon Solutions LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00105 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding the General Plastic factors favored denying Microchip’s second petition challenging claims 1–3, 5, 8–11, 13, 15, and 17.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). The Board, however, has discretion to deny a petition even when a petitioner meets that threshold. Id.; see, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261, 272 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”); General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential as to § II.B.4.i) (recognizing the same) (“General Plastic”); see also Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”) 55–63, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (identifying considerations that may warrant exercise of this discretion). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine it is appropriate to exercise our discretion and decline to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Further, Petitioner provides no persuasive explanation why it is again challenging claims 1–3, 5, 8–11, 13, 15, and 17 here or why Petitioner needs two instituted inter partes reviews on the common claims. See generally Pet. 78–82. Petitioner does not explain persuasively why the “Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions,” short of saying that “[i]n contrast to the primary references cited in Petition 1, the primary reference [Lin] cited in Petition 2 more clearly describes and depicts a local interconnect.” Ranking 3. However, Petitioner also asserts that “the respective disclosures in Trivedi and Joo (both cited in Petition 1 [of IPR752]) are not inadequate in any manner as they both disclose local interconnects.” Id. In IPR752, for the purposes of institution and based on 11 Petitioner incorrectly refers to IPR2021-01420 as the earlier filed proceeding involving the ’033 patent. Petitioner’s citation is incorrect. That proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 7,260,731. Pet. 2 (chart). in that proceeding. IPR 752 Dec. 26–32 (discussing limitations recited in claim 1). Thus, at best, in this proceeding, Lin is duplicative of what Petitioner relies upon in Trivedi to teach local interconnects. Additionally, we observe that 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. CTPG 59. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that this General Plastic factor weighs in favor of denying institution of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 8. 2. Whether at the Time of Filing of the First Petition the Petitioner Knew,” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,774,033 - 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 - Snap Inc. v. Blackberry LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 13, 2020 · IPR2020-00392 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on § 314(a) discretionary grounds and denied joinder, citing the concluded district court case, prior petition, and delay in filing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). Having considered both the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we exercise our delegated discretion, under 35 U.S.C. § 314, to deny the Petition in this proceeding. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review. Because we deny institution of the Petition, we also deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“The precedential Fintiv Order identifies several factors to be considered in analyzing § 314(a) issues, with the goal of balancing efficiency, fairness, and patent quality. See Fintiv Order, Paper 11 at 5–6. These factors include: 1) whether a stay exists or is likely to be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2) proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline; 3) investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and 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 and considerations that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Id.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“As noted above, Petitioner filed IPR2019-00829 on March 25, 2019, which was already near the end of Petitioner’s statutory period. We denied institution on the merits on October 1, 2019. The Challenged Claims were part of this prior petition. Petitioner’s second petition, the current Petition, was filed on January 3, 2020. At that time, Petitioner had already received the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in IPR2019-00829 as well as our decision denying institution. Petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the current Petition at least as of April 6, 2019 – the date Facebook filed its petition in IPR2019-00940. Prelim. Resp. 3; Ex. 2001. Thus, Petitioner waited at least nine months after learning of the asserted prior art to bring the second petition. These factors favor exercising our discretion to deny institution. General Plastic Factors 5–7 Petitioner’s explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to nearly the same claims of the same patent consists of the following: Petitioner is also unaware of any basis under § 314(a) for the Board to decline to consider this Petition. As discussed in section I.B., Facebook previously filed an IPR petition challenging the ’929 patent on April 6, 2019. (Ex. 1022). Snap obtained Facebook’s petition, after it was filed and publicly available, from the Patent Office. Snap’s petition is a substantively identical copy of Facebook’s ’929 petition. (See Ex. 1022). Pet. 3. Petitioner does not address why we should institute a petition challenging claims that have already been disclaimed or found unpatentable by a district court. Petitioner also does not address the delay in bringing the current Petition even though Petitioner was aware of the prior art for at least nine months. The facts of this proceeding are unique, and Petitioner has not explained adequately why we should not exercise our discretion to deny this Petition.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“not obligate us to institute in this proceeding without first considering whether to exercise discretion. The statutory provision governing joinder in inter partes review proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads: If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314. Two clauses within 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) are the source of discretion to deny joinder. The first states “the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party.” Thus, joinder is not required, but remains discretionary. Second, the statute requires an additional step. Acting under delegated authority from the Director, we first determine whether the petition warrants the institution of an inter partes review under § 314. Id. (“the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 . . . determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314”). The statute allows for a patent owner preliminary response, and we read 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) as requiring us to consider all of patent owner’s arguments, including those related to discretionary denial under section 314(a).” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,676,929
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.