- Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · PGR2024-00047 · APJ Steven M Amundson · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any of claims 1–7 was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“to institute a post-grant review. We may not institute a post-grant review unless we determine that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2024).” slip op. at 2
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not shown unpatentable
“2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as encompassing a” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable
“2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 26
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not shown unpatentable
“2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 36
§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,830,546 - Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · PGR2024-00025 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–20 were more likely than not unpatentable over either obviousness ground, for lack of utility, or as indefinite.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’033 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–22, 44–45). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’033 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level”” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not offer a specific construction for any claim terms. Pet. 19–20. Rather, Petitioner contends that “the outer boundary of the Challenged Claims lacks reasonable certainty,” and, therefore, “the Challenged Claims are unpatentable as indefinite under §112(b).” Pet. 20. Petitioner further contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious “regardless of the outer boundary of the claims.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s arguments regarding indefiniteness, and does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. As explained in detail below, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s indefiniteness arguments, and determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner focuses its obviousness challenge on 1PNZQ23’s phenotype, and does not address its genotype. Prelim. Resp. 41–42; see Pet. 26–32 (comparing 1PNZQ23’s phenotype with the phenotypes of the asserted prior art). Petitioner does not direct us to, nor do we discern, any information in the Petition or Reply regarding 1PNZQ23’s genotype that supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding obviousness. Furthermore, Patent Owner offers information suggesting that “the breeding of 1PNZQ23 was unpredictable even with both parents being known in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 47. Dr. Schnable addresses unpredictability in the breeding process, stating: distinct even when the F1 plant itself results from a cross of two inbreds. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not expect that a cross of the same parents will produce F2 or D1 progeny identical to 1PNZQ23. . . . [T]he genome of a progeny plant is the result of genetic segregation and recombination in the F1 plant of the two parental genomes and the chance of the exact same child resulting from that initial biparental cross is infinitesimally small. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123. This information undermines Petitioner’s arguments regarding an expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,707,033 - Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 24, 2024 · PGR2024-00019 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–20 because the Petition did not show they were more likely than not unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that claims 1–20 of the ’803 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a post-grant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’803 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner also does not construe and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms requires an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“their cross ultimately resulted in the inbred variety 1PFLQ21. The ’803 patent explains that after the initial crossing of the parental lines, the selection of the progeny was based on genetic analysis predicting disease, insect, and agronomic phenotypic performance. Id. 37:64–66. “Inbred 1PFLQ21 was developed by producing a doubled haploid from the F1 plants, selfing and using pedigree selection amongst the D1 lines, and selfing and bulking from the subsequent generations.” Id. 37:66–38:3. The ’803 patent specification, therefore, makes it clear that simply crossing both parental inbred maize lines is not reasonably expected to result in the claimed inbred maize variety; rather, it explains that more plant breeding work is required to arrive at the 1PFLQ21 inbred maize line than just having both parental inbred maize lines available.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,659,803 - Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 24, 2024 · PGR2024-00020 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution
Denied institution of PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood equivalent under § 324 that any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’020 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a high level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist . . . along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art,” but “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’020 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 22. Patent Owner also does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Based on these disclosures in Smalley, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the parental line PH1D84 could have been used as a starting point to arrive at other inbred lines. See Pet. 41. Petitioner, however, fails to demonstrate sufficiently how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in developing 1PFHC43 specifically, when its other parent was not known in the art at the relevant time. As Dr. Schnable explains, 1PFHC43’s genome is derived from its parents. Ex. 2004 ¶ 115. Petitioner does not address how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to produce the claimed seed, including its unique genotype, without having access to PH1VNA or its genomic and phenotypic information.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,666,020 - Freedom To Operate, Inc. v. Compass Pathfinder LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 22, 2022 · PGR2022-00018 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–23 because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . ., if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that any of the claims challenged in the Petition are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“G. Remaining Arguments Patent Owner also argues we should deny the Petition for failure to identify all real parties-in-interest in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 31–44. Because we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that in this Decision.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an advanced degree (i.e., a Master’s degree with two or more years of experience, or a Ph.D.) in inorganic or organic chemistry, chemical engineering, pharmacology, or a related discipline” and “would be familiar with medicinal chemistry or pharmaceutical chemistry, and with analytical methods to characterize and differentiate solid forms of compounds, (‘DSC’) and thermogravimetric analysis (‘TGA’).” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1106 ¶ 38). Petitioner further contends that “[a]lternatively, one of ordinary skill could have less education and approximately five or more years of relevant experience.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. Absent opposition from Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s definition because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, as it is most consistent with the intrinsic evidence. The claim language makes clear that “Polymorph A” is “characterized by” the specific peaks set forth in the claims. Ex. 1101, claims 1, 8, 16. Thus, regardless of the alleged conventional definition of a “polymorph,” urged by Petitioner, the inventors are entitled to act as their own lexicographers to define “Polymorph A” according to the recited peaks on the XRPD diffractogram. See Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 493 F.3d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“When a patentee defines a claim term, the patentee’s definition governs, even if it is contrary to the conventional meaning of the term.”). That the Specification consistently refers to “Polymorph A” as a proper noun and describes Polymorph A as “characterized by” the recited peaks in an XRPD diffractogram further highlights the inventors’ clear intent to act as their own lexicographer. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 4:4–5:36; Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, 395 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“When a patentee acts away from their ordinary meaning, he must clearly express that intent in the written description.”). Finally, we agree with Patent Owner that the prosecution history of the parent ’257 patent is relevant to the construction of the claims of the ’259 patent, which is a continuation of the ’257 patent. Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Statements made during prosecution of a parent application are relevant to construing terms in a patent resulting from a continuation application if such statements relate to the subject matter of the claims being construed.”)). During prosecution of the parent ’257 patent application, the examiner rejected original claim 1 as indefinite because it did not define “Polymorph A,” and required one to “refer to the specification to determine what is Polymorph A.” Ex. 2133, 7. Patent Owner then amended the claims to define Polymorph A by adding the specific XRPD peaks recited in claim 1. Ex. 2134, 2; see also id. at 6. Thus, we find the intrinsic evidence supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,954,259 - Freedom To Operate, Inc. v. Compass Pathfinder LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 22, 2022 · PGR2022-00012 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–23 because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . ., if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that any of the claims challenged in the Petition are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had an advanced degree (i.e., a Master’s degree with two or more years of experience, or a Ph.D.) in inorganic or organic chemistry, chemical engineering, pharmacology, or a related discipline” and “would be familiar with medicinal chemistry or pharmaceutical chemistry, and with analytical methods to characterize and differentiate solid forms of compounds, particularly XRPD, but also including differential scanning calorimetry (‘DSC’) and thermogravimetric analysis (‘TGA’).” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 35). Petitioner further contends that “[a]lternatively, one of ordinary skill could have less education and approximately five or more years of relevant experience.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. Absent opposition from Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s definition because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, as it is most consistent with the intrinsic evidence. The claim language makes clear that “Polymorph A” is “characterized by” the specific peaks set forth in claim 1. Ex. 1001, claim 1. Thus, regardless of the alleged conventional definition of a “polymorph,” urged by Petitioner, the inventors are entitled to act as their own lexicographers to define “Polymorph A” according to the recited peaks on the XRPD diffractogram. See Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics a claim term, the patentee’s definition governs, even if it is contrary to the conventional meaning of the term.”). That the Specification consistently refers to “Polymorph A” as a proper noun and describes Polymorph A as “characterized by” the recited peaks in an XRPD diffractogram further highlights the inventors’ clear intent to act as their own lexicographer. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:4–5:36; Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, 395 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“When a patentee acts as his own lexicographer in redefining the meaning of particular claim terms away from their ordinary meaning, he must clearly express that intent in the written description.”). Finally, during prosecution of the ’257 patent application, the examiner rejected original claim 1 as indefinite because it did not define “Polymorph A,” and required one to “refer to the specification to determine what is Polymorph A.” Ex. 1060, 7. Patent Owner then amended the claims to define Polymorph A by adding the specific XRPD peaks recited in claim 1. Ex. 1062, 2; see also id. at 6. Thus, we find the intrinsic evidence supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Having considered the parties’ respective arguments and evidence, we find Patent Owner has the better position. Although we agree with Petitioner that some degree of experimental error should be factored into the specific peaks of a diffractogram, the claim language already does so by expressly reciting a variance of “±0.1°2θ.” See Ex. 1001, claim 1. Construing the claims to include an additional degree of variance would effectively read out the “±0.1°2θ” limitation of the claims. See Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”). Moreover, we note that the express recitation of a specific variance distinguishes the ’257 patent claims from the claims of the Astrazeneca cases cited by Petitioner, which did not recite such a variance. See Pet. 11–12. In addition, the Specification consistently refers to a variance of ±0.1°2θ whenever it refers to peaks on a diffractogram. See generally Ex. 1001, 3:58–5:24. Petitioner acknowledges that the claims recite a range of peak locations, but argues that the Specification “does not explain the basis for the claimed range.” Pet. 10. Petitioner, however, does not explain why the Specification would need to explain that basis, particularly if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that ±0.1°2θ is an acceptable variance for XRPD.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,947,257 - Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 5, 2018 · CBM2017-00047 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Yahoo!’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on the § 101 challenge to claims 1, 2-4, 11-13, 16-17, and 20-22.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“matter, resolution of this issue in Petitioner’s favor is not dispositive, as Petitioner still failed to account sufficiently for the terms “offsite” and “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect.” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“matter, resolution of this issue in Petitioner’s favor is not dispositive, as Petitioner still failed to account sufficiently for the terms “offsite” and “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect.” slip op. at 6
§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 8,244,586 - Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 5, 2018 · CBM2017-00046 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Yahoo!’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on the § 101 challenge to claims 1–8, 10, 13–16, 24, 27–29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, and 41–47.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect. slip op. at 6
§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 7,822,639 - HP Inc. / SAP America, Inc. v. Big Baboon, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 28, 2016 · CBM2016-00020 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 15 and 20–34 were more likely than not unpatentable under § 101 or any of the three § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the reasons that follow, Petitioner failed to establish that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“We believe the same is true in this matter. Petitioner fails to identify specific documentary evidence indicating that the claim element “via Web administration, producing a software configuration in which selected ones of the modules are enabled or disabled” would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’275 patent. At best, Petitioner provides a string cite to nine different documents, without pointing to any particular page or disclosure in any of those documents, as allegedly illustrating an “industry-wide push to Web-enable,” and provides a string cite to eight different paragraphs of testimony from Dr. Greenspun, as allegedly indicating why a skilled artisan “would have seen a strong need to provide Web-enabled system administration capabilities for the R/3 system described in R/3 Online and R/3 Book.” See Pet. 63–64 (citing Exs. 1017– 1021, 1023, 1026, 1027, 1030; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 58–60, 85–86, 110–112). Petitioner, however, fails to identify with specificity which documentary evidence indicates that it would have been common knowledge to provide a Web interface for system administration of the system described by R/3 Online and the R/3 Book and, thus, that claim 15 would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan based on combining this alleged common knowledge with the system described by R/3 Online and R/3 Book. The Board, and Patent Owner, are left to speculate as to which particular evidence Petitioner is relying on. See Pet. 12, 42; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(b)(4)–(5) (a petition must “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art” and identify “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”), 42.22(a)(2) (a petition must include a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”). In view of this deficiency, we determine that Petitioner fails to articulate sufficient reasoning to support its assertion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that independent claim 15, and claims 20–34 dependent therefrom, would have been obvious over R/3 Online and R/3 Book.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner urges the Board to construe two claim phrases. First, Petitioner urges us to construe the claimed “end-to-end, business-to-business, e-commerce business automation software for automation business functions across multiple business domains” to mean “[s]oftware that, using a computer network, at least partially automates business functions relating to two or more businesses and from two or more business domains (such as products, payments, and financial performance).” Pet. 19. Second, Petitioner urges us to construe the claimed “via Web administration, producing a software configuration in which selected ones of the modules are enabled or disabled” to mean “producing a software configuration in which modules can be enabled or disabled by (1) changing the configuration parameters of a web server program or (2) using a Web browser to change configuration parameters of software running on a server.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner does not offer any proposed constructions of claim terms in its Preliminary Response. For the reasons explained below, in this case determining the scope of the terms proffered by Petitioner is not necessary to determine whether Petitioner has met the standard for institution of a covered business method patent review, and we decline to adopt the constructions sought by Petitioner. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“Claim 15 (the only claim substantively addressed by Petitioner), however, does not recite any “gathering” steps, and Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how the limitations of claim 15 are directed to the concept of “gathering” information. For example, claim 15 merely recites “providing . . . business automation software, “identifying multiple modules of the software,” and producing a “software configuration.” Additionally, claim 15 requires producing a “workscope/workflow structured display of complex database records,” which constitutes “an integrated decision-making environment for a particular business function.” Thus, the method of claim 15 does not expressly require that information be gathered across “multiple business domains.” Rather, claim 15 requires providing “business automation software” to produce a “structured display” of “records” pertaining to a “business transaction,” such that the display constitutes an “integrated decision-making environment for a particular business function.” Thus, even if Petitioner is correct that “gathering information from across a business and using the information to make decisions” by itself is an abstract idea, Petitioner’s analysis does not address sufficiently the specific language of claim 15 and explain why claim 15 is directed to that idea. See Pet. 27. Similarly, dependent claims 20–34 are not directed to “gathering information,” and Petitioner provides no analysis of the language of the dependent claims. In light of the above, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish the first step of the Mayo framework; i.e., Petitioner fails to identify sufficiently an abstract idea to which claim 15 is directed.8 Petitioner combines its arguments under § 101 against dependent claims 20– 34 with its arguments against claim 15 and fails to provide any additional arguments for these dependent claims. See Pet. 25 (arguing that the “sixteen challenged claims of the ’275 patent are likewise unpatentable under §101”). Therefore, we similarly determine that Petitioner fails to establish the first step of the Mayo framework with respect to dependent claims 20–34. Based on the foregoing, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish, based on the record presented, that claims 15 and 20–34 are more likely than not directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 8 We need not decide whether claim 15 is directed to a different abstract idea, and only determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that claim 15 is directed to the alleged abstract idea that Petitioner proposes in the Petition.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · MayoPatents in suitUS 6,343,275 - Informatica Corporation v. Protegrity CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 6, 2015 · CBM2015-00010 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied both rehearing requests, leaving institution and denial of the identified claims and grounds unchanged after finding no abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined 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. See Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing a decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In its Request for Rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matter that party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place where each matter was previously addressed. Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Other
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “[T]he prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “[I]t is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 1371. “[D]ifferences between the prior art reference and a claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation.” Id. Petitioner first quotes a passage from Denning that describes the columns of the access matrix as corresponding to objects which are controlled by the access matrix. See Ex. 1006, 192. Petitioner then quotes a disparate portion of Denning that describes a relational database system that consists of n-tuples having n attributes or columns, with respect to authorization lists, which are a different type of access control. See id. at 213. Neither of these quoted passages links the objects of the access matrix model to the columns of the relational database system, described in connection with the authorization lists, or provides any other adequate explanation as to how Denning discloses that the object of the access matrix model “corresponds” to the columns of the relational database system. In the Petition, Petitioner and its declarant also state that Denning discloses that the access matrix is applicable to database systems. Pet. 3; Ex. 1010 ¶ 54 (citing Ex. 1006, 192). However, this also does not describe the objects of the access matrix model as columns of the relational database system. slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“LLC. See Decision 9–10. As we stated in our Decision, a party may not petition for post-grant review if it has filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent before the petition is filed. 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.201(a); see Securebuy, LLC, CBM2014-00035, (PTAB Apr. 25, 2014) (Paper 12, precedential) (explaining that 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) applies to covered business method patent review proceedings). In this case, however, Petitioner’s filing of a civil action before filing the Petition did not trigger the statutory bar because the civil action was dismissed without prejudice. See id. Dismissal without prejudice does not trigger the statutory bar. See Decision 9 (citing Cyanotech Corp. v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill., IPR2013-00401, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB Dec. 19, 2013) (Paper 17) (“Excluding an action that de jure never existed from the scope of § 315(a)(1) is consistent with both relevant case law and legislative history.”); Callidus Software, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00052, slip op. at 5–7 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2014) (Paper 21).); “The dismissal of an action without prejudice leaves the parties as though the action had never been brought. Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022, slip op. at 16–18 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2014)(Paper 166) (citing Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). In SecureBuy, LLC, the Board determined the 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) applied to covered business method review proceedings, but made no determination as to whether or not a dismissal without prejudice triggered the statutory bar. See SecureBuy, LLC, CBM2014-00035 (PTAB April 25, 2014)( Paper 12).” slip op. at 4
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “[T]he prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “[I]t is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 1371. “[D]ifferences between the prior art reference and a claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation.” Id. Petitioner first quotes a passage from Denning that describes the columns of the access matrix as corresponding to objects which are controlled by the access matrix. See Ex. 1006, 192. Petitioner then quotes a disparate portion of Denning that describes a relational database system that consists of n-tuples having n attributes or columns, with respect to authorization lists, which are a different type of access control. See id. at 213. Neither of these quoted passages links the objects of the access matrix model to the columns of the relational database system, described in connection with the authorization lists, or provides any other adequate explanation as to how Denning discloses that the object of the access matrix model “corresponds” to the columns of the relational database system. In the Petition, Petitioner and its declarant also state that Denning discloses that the access matrix is applicable to database systems. Pet. 3; Ex. 1010 ¶ 54 (citing Ex. 1006, 192). However, this also does not describe the objects of the access matrix model as columns of the relational database system. Petitioner alternatively argues that Denning’s objects at the top of the columns of the access matrix model are associated with a data category, when “data category” is given the broadest reasonable construction adopted in the Decision. Pet. Req. 3, 9. Petitioner states: “[f]or example, M1 refers to a division of data that shares a common attribute of being stored in memory segment M1.” Id. Petitioner, however, does not identify where this argument was raised in the first instance in the Petition, and we can find no such argument in the Petition. We could not have overlooked or misapprehended an argument that was not raised in the Petition. We, thus, are not persuaded by Petitioner that we abused our discretion in denying institution of covered business method patent review of claims 15, 31, 33, and 47 on the ground of obviousness over Denning. slip op. at 14
§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,402,281
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.