• Red Hat, Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Electronics & Telecommunications Research InstituteInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2019 · IPR2019-00467 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims 1–14 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on any asserted obviousness ground.

  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 “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). Having considered all submissions of both parties, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 1–14. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsNot reached

    “35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to not institute review in this case, because Petitioner has filed, simultaneously, two petitions for inter partes review of the same claims of the ’436 patent. Prelim. Resp. 33–35. According to Patent Owner, “[m]ultiple simultaneous petitions can pose more harassment risks than ones spread out over time as they multiply the patent owner’s work and expense in the compressed time frames of IPR proceedings.” Id. at 34. Patent Owner argues that multiple simultaneously filings amount to paying more to argue more, which is contrary to “the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete [review] proceedings.” Id. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(b)). We do not reach the issue of discretionary denial of the Petition, because, as discussed above, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of any claim.” slip op. at 39

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “at least an undergraduate degree or equivalent academic or professional training in computer science or computer engineering, or a related field, and two years of industry experience in the field of data storage systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 11). Patent Owner has not offered an articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt the level of ordinary skill as articulated by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate level of education. The qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing a Ph.D. Degree and beyond, and thus does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art. C.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededMixed

    “Petitioner proposes a construction for the claims terms “disk partition” and “extent.” Pet. 9–11. Patent Owner does not disagree with Petitioner’s proposed constructions of “disk partition” and “extent.” It is not necessary in this Decision, however, to construe the term “extent.” Petitioner proposes that “disk partition” means “one of a plurality of disks or portions of a disk that form a logical volume.” Pet. 9. We have reviewed the specification and the prosecution history of record, and have no reason to disagree with Petitioner’s construction of “disk partition,” with the understanding that “form a logical volume” refers to actual storage space allocated exclusively to a logical volume. The specification of the ’436 patent does not indicate any overlap in the disk partitions of separate logical volumes. Petitioner also has not explained how such an overlap could be permitted without creating usage conflicts between logical volumes that would render the data unreliable. Petitioner’s articulation plus our additional clarification is consistent with the specification, particularly the illustration shown in Figure 2 reproduced above. Each of the first quarter of disks 1, 2, 3, and 4 is a disk partition forming logical volume 1. Each of the second quarter of disks 1, 2, 3, and 4 is a disk partition forming logical volume 2. Each of the third quarter of disks 1, 2, 3, and 4 is a disk partition forming logical volume 3. Each of the fourth quarter of disks 1, 2, 3, and 4 is a disk partition forming logical volume 4. Each of the whole of disks 5, 6, 7, and 8 is a disk partition forming logical volume 4. D.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,718,436
• Wilson Electronics, LLC v. Cellphone-Mate, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2019 · IPR2018-01774 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenges because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “On the whole, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence demonstrate no more than the possibility that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have modified Layne, without providing sufficient reasoning or evidence as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Layne to meet the claimed invention. Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Consequently, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that independent claim 1 would have been obvious over Layne, Sahota, and “alternatively” McKay. See Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1366 (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”). We understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, but “[w]ithout any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against.” Id. at 1367 (“‘[T]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,’ we also recognize that we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21)). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding independent claim 19 suffer from the same problems. See Pet. 38. And Petitioner’s treatment of dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8, 20, and 24 does not cure the deficiencies in the challenges of claims 1 and 19. See Pet. 29–36, 42–44.” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “in an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016).8 Consistent with that standard, we assign claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “paths have the same configuration of circuitry. Pet. 24. We find this unavailing. Patent Owner persuades us that Layne discloses separate paths for its two downlink channels, and that the circuits for the uplink paths have significantly different configurations from the circuit for the uplink paths. Prelim. Resp. 16–18. Thus, not all uplink and downlink paths have the same configuration of circuitry. Without addressing the different circuit configurations of Layne’s uplink and downlink paths, Petitioner and Dr. Ralston cite McKay as disclosing an example with uplink and downlink paths having similar or the same configuration. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 110); Ex. 1002 ¶ 50 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 110). In view of Layne, Dr. Ralston’s testimony and McKay demonstrate, at most, that the circuit configurations of uplink and downlink paths could be the same. Demonstrating that uplink and downlink paths could be the same does not demonstrate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Layne. Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the prior art references. In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Petitioner’s citation of the ’190 patent as evidence of obviousness is” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner

    “Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, it is not clear to us that the cited disclosure teaches identity between the circuitry of uplink and downlink paths. Additionally, assuming the cited disclosure does demonstrate some similarity between amplifying uplink and downlink channels, Petitioner again fails to provide sufficient persuasive evidence or reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Layne. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reliance on the cited portion of the ’190 patent is impermissible hindsight. See Prelim. Resp. 20–21. Pet. 30. “It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Thus, we find that Petitioner’s allegation of what is allegedly known now (after seeing the disclosure of the ’190 patent) does not support an assertion of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which precludes patentability “if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention” (emphasis added).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,402,190
• Netapp, Inc. / Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 22, 2017 · IPR2017-00416 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s request to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 24, 25, 31, and 34.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Next, we are not persuaded that Petitioner or Mr. Jestice has articulated sufficient rationale to modify Kent and Tanenbaum in view of Gridley in the proposed manner, i.e., placing the error correction function, such as the NAK feedback and retransmission handshake function, at the switch interfaces. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument or Mr. Jestice’s explanation based on the purported benefit of “saving network bandwidth” in the proposed combination because, when error detection and correction is performed by the switch interfaces between the source device and the switch, as proposed by Petitioner, it would also be necessary to perform error detection and correction on the other side of the switch, i.e., between the switch and the destination device, to ensure reliable communication along the complete path of transmission from the source to the destination. Hence, contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the proposed combination of Kent, Tanenbaum, and Gridley would not necessarily “eliminate” the transmission of invalid packets from the switch to the destination or the transmission of NAK packets from the destination device to the switch. Nor would the proposed combination necessarily “save network bandwidth” between the switch and the destination device by purportedly “eliminating” such transmissions. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Jestice explains sufficiently why performing error correction between the source device and the switch eliminates the need for performing error correction between the switch and the destination device. Put another way, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Jestice explains sufficiently why performing error correction between the source device and the switch eliminates transmission error between the switch and the destination device. We discern no reasonable explanation in the record why the communication between the switch and the destination device would become error free as the result of performing error correction in the transmission between the source device and the switch. Hence, we are not persuaded that the proposed modification would have “save[d] network bandwidth” between the switch and the destination device by “eliminat[ing]” the transmission of invalid packets and NAK packets between the switch and the destination device. Consequently, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place the NAK feedback and retransmission function at the switch interfaces between the source and the switch for the reasons stated by Petitioner when combining the teachings of Kent, Tanenbaum, and Gridley. Therefore, we find the rationale articulated by Petitioner for combining Kent, Tanenbaum, and Gridley in the manner asserted by Petitioner to be insufficient.” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededGranted

    “Although we agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims in this case should be interpreted in accordance with the standard set forth in Phillips, see Black & Decker, Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc., 646 F. App’x 1019, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (holding that in an inter partes review, “[c]laims of an expired patent are given their ordinary and customary meaning in accordance with our opinion in [Phillips]”), and grant Patent Owner’s motion accordingly, we need not construe explicitly any of the claim terms discussed by the parties for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that “claim 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 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,516,442
• Resmed Limited / Resmed Inc., And Resmed Corp v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01723 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted anticipation or obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute a trial under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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). We are persuaded there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we do not institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–7, 10 and 11 of the ’345 patent1.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s argument fails. Prior Board decisions have consistently interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) as not barring inter partes 2 Claims 8 and 9 were disclaimed and have therefore been omitted from this listing. review if the previously filed civil action was dismissed without prejudice, as is the case here. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC, Case IPR2015-00486, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Jul. 15, 2015) (Paper 10); Oracle Corp. v. Click-to-Call Techs. LP, Case IPR2013-00312, slip op. at 12–13 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2014) (Paper 52).” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner responds that the “Petition should be denied because it fails to provide the required evidence necessary to establish the prior art status of [the MR810] technical manual.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Patent Owner asserts “[w]hether a reference has been established as prior art is not merely an evidentiary matter, but a substantive element of Petitioner’s prima facie case of invalidity.” Id. Patent Owner responds to the proofs that its own manual was published by April 2004, including the issue date appearing in the Manual itself, by challenging them as “unclear”: In attempting to establish the prior art status of the MR810 Manual, i.e., that it was “published in April 2004,” the Petition purports to rely on an “April 2004” “Date Issued” date corresponding to Revision C on page 6 of the MR810 Manual. Pet. at 6; Ex. 1006 at 6. But it is unclear from the document what this means, or to whom the document was actually “issued.” Id. at 27–28. We do not find this argument, coming from the party that produced the Manual and presumably knows when it was published, to be credible. Instead, on this record, we determine that Petitioner’s showing that the MR810 Manual was published in April 2004 is sufficient at this stage. Nor do we agree with Patent Owner’s suggestion that the determination whether the Manual qualifies as prior art is not “evidentiary.” See Fed. R. Evid. 104(b) (“When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist.”)” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownNo construction neededMixed

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that their construction is correct as to some, but not all challenged claims. Specifically, claim 1 identifies the “heater wire” and “identification elements” as separate elements. “Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’345 patent specification “consistently teaches that the heater wire is a separate component connected in series with the identification element.” Prelim. Resp. 34–37. As the Federal Circuit said in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015), “[t]he protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation . . . does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation.” (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, the Court stated: “Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude, therefore, that the terms “heater wire” and “identification element” in challenged claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and 4–7 should be construed as requiring separate elements. Claims 10 and 11 present a different situation. These claims depend from claim 8. That claim, directed to a method for identifying a conduit attached to an apparatus, recites the following step: “attaching a conduit comprising a heater wire including an identification element to said apparatus.” (emphasis added). In the context of these claims, and based on the language of the claims themselves, we conclude that “a heater wire including an identification element” could reasonably be construed to encompass a heater wire that is also the identification element.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,186,345
• Enovate Medical, LLC v. Intermetro Industries CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2016 · IPR2015-00300 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 27, 28, 88, 101, and 108 are unpatentable as obvious over Dell, Sweere, and Allan, with Planar additionally applied to claim 108.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012) (internal citations omitted). Generally, “the ‘real party-in-interest’ [on the petitioner side] is the party that desires review of the patent. Thus, the ‘real party-in-interest’ may be the petitioner itself, and/or it may be the party or parties at whose behest the petition has been filed.” Id.” slip op. at 8

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “IV. MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2003–2006. Paper 33. Each of Exhibits 2003–2005 is a license agreement, and Exhibit 2006 is a Declaration by Robert A. Sobie. All of this evidence was submitted by Patent Owner as objective evidence of secondary considerations. Because we do not rely on any of that evidence in a manner adverse to Petitioner, we dismiss the Motion as moot. Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1007, which is a declaration by T.E. Schlesinger, Ph.D., which Petitioner filed with its Reply. Paper 35. Because we do not rely on Exhibit 1007 in any manner, we dismiss the Motion as moot.” slip op. at 28

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Other

    “entity. It was filed without our authorization because it was filed with Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude despite that Exhibit 202316 is not responsive to the Motion to Exclude. Paper 42 (“Opp. to Pet. Mot. to Excl.”). In fact, Patent Owner’s Opposition requests that we enter into the record “new Exhibit 2023, which was finalized subsequent to Patent Owner’s Response.” Opp. to Pet. Mot. to Excl. 1. A request for relief should not be made in an opposition brief. It should be made in a motion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(a) (“Relief, other than a petition requesting the institution of a trial, must be requested in the form of a motion.”). Further, a motion (and, thus, a request for relief) may be filed only if authorization has been obtained. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b) (“A motion will not be entered without Board authorization. Authorization may be provided in an order of general applicability or during the proceeding.”). Consequently, Exhibit 2023 shall be expunged because it was filed without our authorization. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.7.” slip op. at 29

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed

    “No limitation requires an express construction for purposes of the patentability challenge at issue here. See Pet. 6–7 (offering only one proposed construction, which was not material to the patentability challenge);8 PO Resp. 11 (“Patent Owner agrees that the claim terms involved in the [instituted Grounds] do not require construction for purposes of resolving this [inter partes review (IPR)].”).” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 6,721,178 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,721,178
• Meyer Products, LLC v. Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01247 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution on claims 18 under Pruss and Keeler and claims 1, 4–7, and 18 under Coates and Hetrick; other grounds failed the institution threshold.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 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 request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsMixed

    “The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As applied here, the Petition must have specified which prior art structures are being relied on in the asserted ground such that “said lift frame, trunnion, A-frame and motion generating device all being attachable to and detachable from a vehicle as one assembly,” as recited by claim 1 and similarly required by claims 4–7 and 18. The Petition did not. slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “back bar and a pair of side bars arranged in a triangular or ‘A’ configuration,” the Board misapprehended or overlooked the fact that the Specification of the ’757 patent does not define the term “A-frame,” that the Specification states that the patent is “limited . . . by the scope of the following claims and their equivalents,” and that the Specification also uses the term “frame” without the prefix “A-” or uses the term preceded by “mount,” “lift,” or “A-”. Request 3–6. Petitioner argues that this misapprehension causes the Board’s construction to be divorced from the Specification and the record evidence. Request 6 (Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). As an initial matter, we note that Petitioner only cited to two portions of the Specification in the Petition in supporting its construction of “A-frame”: Ex. 1001, 4:62–64, 8:36–40. Pet. 8–9. Accordingly, we restrict ourselves to reconsideration of only this portion of the Specification. And upon reconsideration, we determine that the Board did not misapprehend or overlook the aforementioned cited portions of the Specification in construing “A-frame”; instead, the Board considered those portions expressly, but came to a different conclusion. Specifically, as set forth in the Decision, the fact that other shapes may be referred to in the Specification does not broaden the “A” shape of the “A-frame,” as recited in claims 1 and 4–7. The Decision notes Patent Owner’s suggestion that other claims, not at issue, might still allow for use of the invention with another shape for the frame. Decision 7. Petitioner argues that these other claims do not refer to an “A-frame.” Request 6. We agree. This argument is misplaced, however, as the lack of specificity of shape for the corresponding frame in the other claims is fully consistent with the notion that these other frames use a non-A-frame shape. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Decision misapprehended or overlooked any arguments with respect to the asserted ground of anticipation by Pruss.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As applied here, the Petition must have specified which prior art structures are being relied on in the asserted ground such that “said lift frame, trunnion, A-frame and motion generating device all being attachable to and detachable from a vehicle as one assembly,” as recited by claim 1 and similarly required by claims 4–7 and 18. The Petition did not. slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,928,757
• Apple Inc. v. Tracbeam, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2016 · IPR2015-01702 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  Instituted review in IPR2015-01703 on specified Loomis grounds for claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 39, 78, 81, 155, 162, 165, and 215; denied institution in IPR2015-01702.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude the information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 39, 78, 81, 155, 162, 165, and 215, but not of claims 17, 40, or 72. Accordingly, we authorize an inter partes review to be instituted only as to claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 39, 78, 81, 155, 162, 165, and 215 of the ’231 patent. Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding are based on the evidentiary record developed thus far (prior to Patent Owner’s Response). This is not a final decision as” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “and second location estimation determiners determine geographical indications “independently of one another.” Independent claim 17, similar to claim 40, requires that “wherein the second instance does not depend on a geographical location of the mobile station obtained from information indicative of a distance between the mobile station and at least one of the one or more satellites.” Petitioner’s sole contention with respect to claim 40 and the cited portions of claim 17 is: “Location determiners can be independent of each other. See, e.g., 5:7–9; Figs. 6, 9.” 1703-Pet 39, 44. The portion of Loomis cited by Petitioner states that “[t]he outdoor LD system operates independently of the radio LD signal system, and each of these systems can determine the present location of the user at selected times.” IPR-1703, Ex. 1008, 5:7–9. Thus, Petitioner has shown that the outdoor LD system of Loomis is independent of the radio LD signal system, but has not shown that the radio LD signal system is independent of the outdoor LD system. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that the determiners are “independent of each other,” as required by claim 40, or that “second instance does not depend on a geographical location . . . obtained from information indicative of a distance between the mobile station and at least one of the one or more satellites,” as required by claim 17 and claim 72, which depends from claim 17.” slip op. at 15

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary other

    “E. Additional Grounds We decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 39, 78, 81, 155, 162, 165, and 215 based on Bruno, in combination with Olsson and/or Geier. We also decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 39, 40, 72, 78, 81, 155, 162, 165, and 215 based on Green and Hashimoto, and additional art, as asserted in IPR-1702. Petitioner asserts multiple grounds to each challenged claim of the ’231 patent across two separate petitions, but does not address the duplicative nature of its arguments across petitions. The Board’s rules for AIA inter partes proceedings, including those pertaining to institution, are “construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); accord 35 U.S.C. §§ 316(b) (regulations for AIA inter partes proceedings take into account “the efficient administration of the Office” and “the ability of the Office to timely complete [instituted] proceedings”). Because we institute an inter partes review of these claims based on the grounds discussed above, we exercise our discretion not to institute a review based on these grounds for reasons of administrative necessity to ensure timely completion of the instituted proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 23

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,764,231
• Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2015 · IPR2015-01434 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,908,343 B2 (“the ’343 Patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311. Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response, Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”), contending that the Petition should be denied as to all challenged claims. We have jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenOther

    “map each claim element to a particular teaching of an asserted reference. In particular, Patent Owner notes that, rather than state the claim language in the Petition, Petitioner provides Exhibit 1013, which breaks the claims into specific phrases and assigns each phrase a designation, e.g., 1.A, 1.B. Prelim. Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s approach improperly incorporates the claims by reference and that no relief can be granted unless the arguments in the Petition itself, of which the claims are an essential part, support granting the relief. Id. at 33. We agree that Petitioner’s use of an Exhibit to specify the claim elements and its failure to include the claim language anywhere in the Petition is an improper incorporation by reference. Nevertheless, although the claim language is not repeated in the Petition, the Petition contains a paragraph for most, if not all the claim element designations. Therefore, we do not dismiss the Petition on this basis alone.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “specification, neither “data parcel” nor “update data parcel” is defined explicitly in the ’343 Patent. The ’343 Patent refers to “source image data” being processed to obtain a series of K1-N derivative images of progressively lower image resolution. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 6–6. The ’343 Patent also discloses the source image data corresponding to the series image K0 being subdivided into a regular array such that each resulting “image parcel” of the array has, for example, 64 by 64 pixel resolution, where the “image data” has a color or bit per pixel depth of 16 bits, which represents a “data parcel” size of 8 K bytes. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 6–11. Thus, an image parcel is an element of a source image array that defines a source image and a data parcel is data that corresponds to an image parcel. In view of this disclosure, we construe “data parcel” to mean data that corresponds to an element of a source image array. We agree that no other specific claim construction is required and we accord the claim terms their ordinary meaning as used in the ’343 Patent specification.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artReference not prior artMixed

    “REFERENCES ARGUED AS NOT APPLICABLE PRIOR ART Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Potmesil (Ex. 1002) and Lindstrom (Ex. 1004) constitute applicable prior art references. Prelim. Resp. 3–12. We addressed the same arguments as those advanced by Patent Owner in this proceeding in our Decision to Institute in related proceeding Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC, Case IPP2015-01432, slip op. at 10–14 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2015)(Decision to Institute)3 and Microsoft corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-01435, slip op. at 8–16 (PTAB Dec. XX, 2015)4. We arrive at the same result in this proceeding and find that, although Petitioner has established that Potmesil is applicable as prior art, Petitioner has not established Lindstrom is prior art that may be applied in Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,908,343
• Neptune Generics, LLC. v. Auspex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2015-01313 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 were unpatentable under § 103(a).

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–10. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “We recognize that an obvious analysis requires us to consider whether an ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success, not absolute predictability of success. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–904 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We agree with Patent Owner, however, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the ordinary artisan would have combined Fogelman with Miwa with a reasonable expectation of arriving at the invention claimed by the ’317 patent. Although Fogelman teaches that ODV may account for 90% of the pathway for intrinsic clearance of VF (Ex. 1003, 483), Fogelman 9 Amanda Yarnell, Heavy Hydrogen Drugs Turn Heads, Again, 87(25) Chem, Eng. News 36–39 (2009). teaches also that ODV has a receptor affinity profile similar to its parent compound VF (id. at 481). As noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 32), Petitioner has not explained, through evidence or adequate scientific reasoning, why the ordinary artisan would have wanted to prevent the metabolism of VF to its pharmaceutically active metabolite, ODV. Stated differently, because ODV is a desired metabolite, as it has the same pharmacological activity as its parent compound, VF, Petitioner has not explained why the ordinary artisan would have had a reason to prevent VF from being metabolized to ODV, rather than only preventing metabolism to a non-active metabolite, or make a substitution that would prevent the further metabolism of ODV.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree. In In re O’Farrell, the Federal Circuit set forth two situations in which an “obvious to try” rationale was usually applied improperly. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 903. The first improper situation was to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters are critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful.” Id. The second improper situation was to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.” Id.; see also In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1358–1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (noting that the rationale in O’Farrell was “affirmed in the logical inverse” in KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, in a statement that “§103 bars patentability unless ‘the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.’”). Based on the above framework, we conclude that it would not have been obvious to try to achieve the invention of claim 1 of the ’317 patent. As noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 35), and not disputed by Petitioner (see Pet. 10–11), there are approximately 227-1, or 124,217,727 deuterated forms of VF, minus some number of forms which are equivalent due to symmetry or rotatable bonds. Although Petitioner contends that as P-450 enzymes act on two main sites of VF—that is, -OCH3 and –N(CH3)2, arguing that it would have been obvious to deuterate only those sites (Pet. 10–11)—as discussed above, the ordinary artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation that deuteration of those sites would result in enhanced bioavailability and maintaining the activity of VF for a longer period of time. Thus, the ordinary artisan would be left with trying the over 100,000,000 possible deuterated forms of VF until possibly arriving at a successful result.” slip op. at 20

  • Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, deniedDenied

    “III. PENDING MOTIONS Patent Owner filed a Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 9). In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 18), as well as a Motion to Expunge Paper 17 (Paper 19). We grant Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge. We deny Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery as moot in view of our denial of the Petition. Finally, as we did not rely on the material Petitioner sought to seal, we decline to address the merits of the Motion to Seal. Petitioner is authorized to file a motion to expunge any material that it seeks to keep confidential within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision, or within thirty (30) days of a decision on rehearing, if rehearing is requested.” slip op. at 22

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,456,317
• Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Pozen Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 9, 2015 · IPR2015-00802 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–4, finding no reasonable likelihood of success because Plachetka was not prior art and the obviousness showing was deficient.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’285 patent. Therefore, we do not authorize an inter partes review for any claim of the ’285 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner fails to convince us that the claims of the ’285 patent are not supported by at least the ’216 application. Therefore, the Plachetka Publication does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Consequently, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1–4 are unpatentable as anticipated by the Plachetka Publication.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “An enteric-coated dosage form of omeprazole must be perfectly coated and acid resistant, since, if any drug leaks out of the dosage form in the stomach, it is almost immediately degraded. The same is the case if an acidic medium can diffuse into the dosage form through pin-holes or damage in the enteric-coating. We agree with the Patent Owner that Pilbrant teaches away from the claimed combination. Prelim. Resp. 36 (“Petitioner’s failure to acknowledge the complete disclosure of Pilbrant, which negates any motivation to use the non-enterically coated form of esomeprazole, despite the testimony of Petitioner’s own expert, is an incurable flaw in the Petition”). When a prior art reference teaches away from combining known elements, discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely to be nonobvious. See KSR Internat’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). A reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994), cited in In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that although one of skill in the art “might have believed” that enteric coated esomeprazole was generally the better option, “that does not exclude the use of non-enteric coated esomeprazole as still ‘good enough’ to be obvious, at least in a combination product where all the esomeprazole needs to do is raise the stomach pH to 3.5.” Pet. 51. Here, the very statement that Petitioner relies upon from Pilbrant to support its rationale to combine concerning preabsorption degradation of omeprazole caused Pilbrant to rule out the use of conventional oral dosage forms without an enteric coating. We agree with the Patent Owner that Petitioner’s “[m]otivation to combine in the face of an express teaching away must be found in the prior art itself and reliance on the teachings of the ’285 patent is impermissible hindsight.” Prelim. Resp. 37.” slip op. at 25

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionNo construction neededMixed

    “Both parties acknowledge that the claim requires a therapeutically effective amount of naproxen must be surrounded by a coating. Pet. 27; Prelim. Resp. 7. Petitioner’s interpretation, however, turns this requirement on its head. As Patent Owner notes, using the transitional term “comprising” means that additional components may be present, but does not change the elements that are stated in the claim. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 695 F.3d 1285, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Petitioner’s interpretation, however, would encompass a composition where the vast majority of the naproxen, i.e., a therapeutically effective amount, would be outside of the coating. This is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim. We agree with Patent Owner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “comprising . . . naproxen surrounded by a coating” means “a therapeutically effective amount of naproxen is surrounded by a coating,” but do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that this claim term excludes any uncoated naproxen from the claim. As Petitioner notes, the Patent Owner has previously addressed the meaning of this limitation in response to invalidity contentions asserting lack of written description support and enablement, stating that the specification of the ’285 patent supports the interpretation “that, in addition to naproxen surrounded by a coating that inhibits its release unless the surrounding medium of the unit dosage form is at least 3.5, the disclosed dosage forms may include additional naproxen outside the coating.” Ex. 1010, 49 (Patent Owner’s responses to invalidity contentions for the ’285 patent) (relying on statements in the specification of the ’285 patent where the combination of an acid inhibitor and an NSAID may be in multi-layer tablet form and where the drug combinations may typically be prepared in admixture with conventional excipients). Patent Owner also has previously stated that the transitional term “comprising” does not exclude the presence of additional naproxen outside of the coating. Id. at 51. We agree. Although the claim term requires that a therapeutically effective amount of naproxen in a unit dosage form is surrounded by a coating, it does not exclude a unit dosage form that has an amount of naproxen outside of the coating that is not therapeutically effective. Therefore, we do not agree that the claims of the ’285 patent” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,557,285

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.