- Cambridge Industries USA, Inc. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00434 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Shen and Soldano did not establish a reasonable likelihood of anticipating claims 1–7.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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 P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS In our Decision, we concluded that Petitioner had failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing that either Shen or Soldano anticipated claims 1–7. Dec. 18, 26. Petitioner argues that we should institute review for three reasons. First, Petitioner argues that we abused our discretion by (a) “refusing” to interpret the scope of the claimed” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Owner’s interpretation of “carrier” as meaning “one or more components for supporting ROSA components such as an AWG.” Dec. 9 (quoting Pet. 11). For our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges, we referred to this interpretation of “carrier” as Petitioner’s second alternative construction. Id. We also noted that Petitioner appeared to dispute Patent Owner’s interpretation when it argued that “carrier” should mean “a ceramic or silicon substrate.” Id. (quoting Pet. 10). We referred to this interpretation of “carrier” as the first alternative construction. Id. Rather than resolve this apparent dispute about the meaning of “carrier,” we found that both of Petitioner’s anticipation challenges failed under both interpretations of “carrier.” Id. at 10–26. Because we found that Petitioner had failed to carry its burden regardless of which interpretation of “carrier” applied, we found it unnecessary to resolve the dispute over that interpretation. Id. at 9–10. For the reasons expressed in Parts II.B–C below, we maintain our conclusion that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of proving that either Shen or Soldano anticipates any claim under either interpretation of “carrier.” Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in our alleged “refusal” to interpret “carrier.”” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Reh’g Req. 14. We cannot weigh Petitioner’s arguments based on its assertions about “caselaw” because Petitioner cited no cases to support its arguments. See id. Nevertheless, we infer that Petitioner intends its statements of “caselaw” to refer to the requirements to make out a case for anticipation. If so, Petitioner demonstrably miscasts what appear to be the legal principles for proving anticipation. As stated in our Decision: “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 California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” Dec. 7. Making a showing that a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim thus necessarily requires proof that a single reference “expressly or inherently” describes every element of that claim and with all elements being arranged in the reference as they are in the” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,379,301 - Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01270 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Belanger-Halevy teaches limitation [1C] of claims 1–26.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply or sur-reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id. We address Petitioner’s rehearing arguments below.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“[m]issing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that a ‘plurality of computer-readable field identifiers’ are mapped ‘to one another’ as required by claim 1.” Dec. 22. We discussed and quoted extensively from Petitioner’s expert declaration of Dr. Fox and Patent Owner’s expert declaration of Dr. Malek. Id. at 22–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 104; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 69, 71). In reviewing the parties’ submissions, we found that: Halevy’s disclosures are consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Malek’s testimony that Halevy does not teach mapping fields to one another or mapping of fields to one another through SO-properties. For example, as described, in Figure 6 and Halevy as a whole, Halevy does not teach or suggest mapping or linking different keywords to one another, rather the keywords are mapped to SO-properties. slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Fox states that “Halevy’s disclosure of a form database in which corresponding fields from different forms on different websites map to the same SO-properties would have been recognized by a POSA as what the ’378 patent refers to as a universal variable map.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:42–46). Based on this conclusory opinion, Dr. Fox reasons that Halevy’s form database is a “universal variable map” that must also link computer-readable field identifiers (including parameter names) from multiple different websites to each other in the form database, because the field identifiers are mapped to the same SO-properties associated with an SO-class. Id. We observe first that Dr. Fox’s conclusion is not supported by the cited portions of the ’378 patent. In column 17, lines 42–46, the ’378 patent explains that fields or variables may be part of forms and variations of these data fields or variables “may include a source form, a destination form, a single source to many destination form, many sources to one destination form, cascading forms (e.g., a first form links to a second form which links to a third form, etc.) and so on.” Ex. 1001, 17:42–46. While this portion of the ’378 patent indicates that forms may include variations on fields or variables, it does not describe any linking or mapping of variables to one another. Ex. 2001 ¶ 76 (“[T]hat portion of the specification does not have anything to do with the definition of a “universal variable map.” Rather, it merely discusses different types of variables and fields that might appear in different types of forms.”). Dec. 28–29. We again referred to the disclosure of the ’378 patent to address evidence in the Petition relied upon by Dr. Fox to support Petitioner’s position. Id. We credited Dr. Malek’s testimony over Dr. Fox’s testimony because Dr. Malek underlined the distinctions between the asserted Belanger-Halevy prior art combination and limitation [1C]. Dec. 28–31. In short, any confusion applying the prior art Belanger-Halevy references to the claim limitation is rooted in the Petition. The Board denied the Petition because the Petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that Belanger-Halevy discloses or teaches limitation [1C] of the ’378 patent.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Finally, with regard to the Reply and Sur-Reply submitted by the parties (Req. 9), we note that our Decision on Institution reviewed the parties’ discussion of claim construction, but ultimately determined that “[b]ased on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision.” Dec. 11. Thus, we disagree with Petitioner that we misconstrued the mapping limitation where we did not find it necessary to construe any claim term for the purposes of our institution decision because we determined the Petition deficient for failing to meet our threshold requirements as discussed above and in detail in the Decision on Institution. See Req. 1–11.” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,633,378 - PTAB · Apr 22, 2025 · IPR2024-00910 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Micron’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 7–10 were obvious over Park.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision on institution, we do not review the merits of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion 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.” Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“dummy source structure might not even be an inoperable structure,” and therefore “the ’872 Patent does not use ‘dummy’ to exclude the dummy source structure from being an operable, functioning element.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 85 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:41–43, 16:63–66). In support of his testimony, Dr. Banerjee points to the Specification’s teaching that “[i]n some embodiments, one or more dummy source structures are in contact with the substrate and may provide interconnect between the 3D memory device and peripheral devices” (Ex. 1001, 5:41–43), and “[w]hen conductive materials are used to fill dummy source hole 212 (e.g., contact 224), the dummy source structure 246 may function as an interconnect to connect 3D memory device 100 with other peripheral devices” (id. at 16:63–66), which we considered and relied upon in construing “dummy source structure” in the Decision. Dec. 11–13. None of the functions identified by Dr. Banerjee, however, relate to whether the dummy source structure would function as a source to the memory cells. Specification consistently describes that function as an interconnect with other peripheral devices, and does not teach or suggest that the dummy source structure may function to provide source to the memory cells. See Ex. 1001, 5:40–43 (“In some embodiments, one or more dummy source structures are in contact with the substrate and may provide interconnect between the 3D memory device and peripheral devices.”), 11:46–48 (“In some embodiments, dummy source structures 178 may function as interconnects to connect 3D memory device 100 with other peripheral devices.”), 16:63–66 (“When conductive materials are used to fill dummy source hole 212 (e.g., contact 244), the dummy source structure 246 may function as an interconnect to connect 3D memory device 100 with other peripheral devices.”). Our construction of “dummy source structure” is consistent with the Specification, and does not foreclose the dummy source structure from being operational, for example, as an interconnect to peripheral devices. Nor is it inconsistent with the Specification’s teaching that “[i]n some embodiments, dummy source structure 246 may not connect to channel structures in the inner region.” See Req. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:38–44). In the case where the dummy source structure connects with the channel structures, the other end may connect with peripheral devices, or may be a dead end. Thus, even if the dummy source structure is operable as an interconnect to connect the 3D memory device with other peripheral devices, it does not follow that a dummy source structure would function as an interconnect to a supply that provides source to the memory cells. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in our construction of the term “dummy source structure.”” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“(Paper 14, “Request” or “Req.”) of our Decision (Paper 13, “Decision” or “Dec.”) denying institution of an inter partes review of claims 7–10 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,861,872 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’872 patent”). The Request challenges our determination that the information presented in the Petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 7–10 would have been obvious over the teachings of Park.1 Dec. 19–23.” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 10,861,872 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currency Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00837 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“rehearing without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request must “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a surreply.” Id. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner misreads limitation [1d], and in particular fails to accord proper meaning to the word “each” in this limitation. “A claim must be read in accordance with the precepts of English grammar.” In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Importantly, “[e]ach is treated as singular . . . when it comes before a singular noun (e.g., each house): Each group is responsible for its own quality control—A. Francis, 1986;” and “when it is followed by of and a plural noun (e.g. each of the houses): each of the three parties has a right to a confidential briefing (not have).” Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage 242 (J. Butterfield ed., 4th ed. 2015). Thus, each refers to each singular (i.e., individual) set of micro mirrors, even though it is followed by “of the sets.” The plain language of limitation [1d] confirms that “each of the sets” is singular by using the singular verb tense “has” rather than the plural tense “have.” Ex. 1001, 28:31. Accordingly, as we held in the Decision (Dec. 17), limitation [1d] requires that each individual set of micro mirrors has a differing cone angle offset. The rest of the limitation’s subject language—“providing the pixels for each of the differing ones of the images”—does not change this result. “[P]roviding the pixels” identifies the relevant “each of the sets of the micro mirrors,” and “for each of the differing ones of the images” identifies the relevant “pixels.” In combination, “providing the pixels for each of the differing ones of the images” clarifies that “each of the sets of the micro mirrors” has, as an antecedent basis, the set (singular) of micro mirrors recited in limitation [1c]. This limitation reads: “the array of micro mirrors includes, for each of the pixels of each of the images, a set of the micro mirrors each having a reflective surface oriented to reflect the ambient light toward a point on the plane corresponding to one of the pixels.” Ex. 1001, 28:24–28 (emphasis added). Thus, each individual set of micro mirrors must have a different cone angle offset from that of the other sets of micro mirrors, whether or not they provide pixels for the same or different images. Petitioner’s interpretation of this language as not requiring differing cone angle offset for sets of micro mirrors forming pixels within the same image (Reh’g Req. 7) is therefore incorrect.” slip op. at 5
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,317,691 - Peddinghaus Corporation v. Ficep CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · IPR2020-01707 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Peddinghaus’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution on claims 1–14 because Hashimoto did not disclose the claimed intersection parameters.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Reh’g Req. 7–8. Although Petitioner avers that the “identifying” of intersection parameters, or connecting holes, is completed in Hashimoto by the member totaling module before any order list is prepared, the order list is pertinent evidence for that assertion and there is nothing inappropriate in discussing that evidence. We recognize no other evidence which was identified by the Petitioner in the Petition, and Petitioner points to no such other evidence that we overlooked. Indeed, Petitioner states: “The Petition references the order list depicted in Figure 19 as merely providing a summary of the information (the ‘total’) that was previously identified and extracted by the member totaling module.” Id. at 8 (emphasis added). As we stated in our Decision, Petitioner points to no description or disclosure in Hashimoto that its member totaling module recognizes the difference between a connecting hole, or intersection parameter, from a nonconnecting hole. Dec. 27. Hashimoto’s member totaling module “automatically totals, by cross section or length, the information including the shape, length, quantity, hole shape and the hole position (design drawing information) of all the light gauge sheet steel used for the steel house existing in the CAD system” and “[b]ased on this total, an order list (steel member order list) is prepared (FIG. 19).” Ex. 1005 ¶ 101. Nowhere in this exhaustive list of hole information, however, is mentioned any data that identifies the difference between a connecting hole, or intersection parameter, and a non-connecting hole. Further, Petitioner’s statement on page 8 of the Rehearing Request that “hole shape” and “hole position” constitute intersection parameters is not persuasive because, from this information, it is unknown how the hole is intended to be used. Moreover, the order list of Figure 19 – which “merely shows the number of holes and the die numbers and positions of where those holes are formed”1 – is the only indicated output of the member totaling module.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner
“meaning of “fastening holes” changes from the first to second embodiment.3 For example, in the Background section of Hashimoto, “fastening holes” are defined generally as holes formed “in the light gauge shape steel for the fastening tools.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 4. The same Background paragraph provides examples of “fastening tools such as a tapping screw and a one-side rivet.” Id. (Emphasis added). Thus, this definition does not strictly limit fastening holes to connecting holes, since it does not foreclose the likely possibility of fastening tools including wires or wiring. Moreover, a “machine for forming the fastening holes” is also disclosed in the Background, the same “non-stationary fastening hole forming machine 5” discussed in Figures 20-21 of the second embodiment. Id. ¶ 5. Thus, when “fastening holes for passing the electrical wiring” (emphasis added) are disclosed in the discussion of Figures 20-21 in Hashimoto’s paragraph 154, there is no evidence suggesting that a different type of “fastening hole” other than what has been generally described in the Background is being mentioned. Id. ¶ 154. The same applies for the 3 The statement made in footnote 3 on pages 11–12 of the Rehearing Request that the only holes in Figure 18 are joints only establishes that the holes in Figure 18 may be connecting holes, not all “fastening holes” in Hashimoto. disclosure that “fastening hole information includ[es]…[where] the wiring holes [are] formed in the stud” in paragraph 156 and how character c in Figure 23 “designates a hole for electrical wiring or a fastening hole for mounting the stud on the structural face plate” (emphasis added) in paragraph 157. Id. ¶¶ 156–157. Thus, it is a much more reasonable reading that in all embodiments of Hashimoto, the definition of “fastening holes” includes both connecting holes and non-connecting holes – such as those for wiring.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As we stated in our Decision, Petitioner points to no description or disclosure in Hashimoto that its member totaling module recognizes the difference between a connecting hole, or intersection parameter, from a nonconnecting hole. Dec. 27. Hashimoto’s member totaling module “automatically totals, by cross section or length, the information including the shape, length, quantity, hole shape and the hole position (design drawing information) of all the light gauge sheet steel used for the steel house existing in the CAD system” and “[b]ased on this total, an order list (steel member order list) is prepared (FIG. 19).” Ex. 1005 ¶ 101. Nowhere in this exhaustive list of hole information, however, is mentioned any data that identifies the difference between a connecting hole, or intersection parameter, and a non-connecting hole. Further, Petitioner’s statement on page 8 of the Rehearing Request that “hole shape” and “hole position” constitute intersection parameters is not persuasive because, from this information, it is unknown how the hole is intended to be used. Moreover, the order list of Figure 19 – which “merely shows the number of holes and the die numbers and positions of where those holes are formed”1 – is the only indicated output of the member totaling module.” slip op. at 3
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,974,719 - PTAB · Aug 12, 2021 · PGR2021-00026 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied for claims 1–20 because Petitioner did not show error in the priority-support finding or improper burden shifting.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s 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). A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the underlying decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The ’611 provisional application discloses a first side (8) and a second side (9) of the beveled platform (5)/distal member wherein the first lateral blade (10) and the second lateral blade (11) are “along the sides of said beveled platform.” Ex. 1007, 38. As shown in the annotated figures below, the ’611 provisional application depicts right and left edges, which are the lines/borders between the sides (8, 9) and top of the distal member, wherein these edges extend towards the rearward end from the tip (6). Decision 39–40 (citing Prelim. Resp. 21, 45–46 (citing Ex. 1007, Figs. 1, 3)). Annotated Figures 1 and 3 include added lines and labels indicating the edges of the distal member. Petitioner’s argument appears to hinge on the contention that the beveled nature of the platform prevents it from being an edge. See Req. Reh’g 4, 6. However, Petitioner provides no persuasive arguments or evidence for this contention. We understand that Petitioner disagrees with the Board’s assessment, but simple disagreement is not effective to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“The ’611 provisional application discloses a first side (8) and a second side (9) of the beveled platform (5)/distal member wherein the first lateral blade (10) and the second lateral blade (11) are “along the sides of said beveled platform.” Ex. 1007, 38. As shown in the annotated figures below, the ’611 provisional application depicts right and left edges, which are the lines/borders between the sides (8, 9) and top of the distal member, wherein these edges extend towards the rearward end from the tip (6). Decision 39–40 (citing Prelim. Resp. 21, 45–46 (citing Ex. 1007, Figs. 1, 3)). Annotated Figures 1 and 3 include added lines and labels indicating the edges of the distal member.” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the claim terms raised by Petitioner were not limited to only showing support in the ’391 patent. In fact, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response discusses in detail where these claim terms are supported in the ’611 provisional application. See Prelim. Resp. 12–24, 39–41, 43–59. We also disagree with Petitioner’s contention that Patent Owner only provided “conclusory remarks” that the challenged claims were supported by priority applications other than the ’611 provisional. Req. Reh’g 11. For example, the Preliminary Response discusses how the challenged claim terms are supported by U.S. Patent No. 15/207,329 (“the ’329 application”). See Prelim. Resp. 24–27, 61, 63–64. Further, as noted in our Decision, Patent Owner also submitted a claim chart providing exemplary excerpts from the ’611 provisional, the ’329 application, and the ’391 patent to establish support for all elements of several exemplary challenged claims. See Decision 26 n.4 (citing Prelim. Resp., Appx. A). Petitioner has not demonstrated that we improperly shifted the burden to Petitioner. Instead, we concluded that the record before us supported Patent Owner’s contention that the non-disclaimed ’391 patent claims should receive priority to the ’611 provisional application. Decision 42.” slip op. at 8
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,786,391 - Commscope Technologies LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 7, 2021 · IPR2020-01466 · APJ Melissa A Haapala · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place the denial of institution on claims 1–12 because petitioner showed no overlooked matter or abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with Petitioner, the party challenging the Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a sur-reply.” Id. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel 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
“establish Hettstedt discloses the “reconfiguring each remote radio unit.” See Dec. 15. We disagree that we overlooked any arguments presented in the Petition with respect to this limitation. In its analysis of the “reconfiguring each remote radio unit” limitation in the Petition, Petitioner relied on Hettstedt’s disclosure that the CMU controls the frequency allocation of each carrier to the remote radio heads “by changing the MAC address of a specific carrier packet to correspond no longer to a first remote radio head, but instead be addressed to a different radio head in a high traffic area.” See Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:10–11; 3:8–16; 4:35–39). Our Decision expressly addressed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence: After reviewing Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, and Patent Owner’s response, we determine Petitioner fails to establish Hettstedt discloses “reconfiguring each remote radio unit” as we construe the claim (changing the configuration of each remote radio unit). Petitioner relies on Hettstedt’s disclosure that the CMU controls allocation of each carrier by changing the MAC addresses of carrier packets to disclose the recited “reconfiguring.” See Pet. 22. However, while changing the MAC addresses of carrier packets may result in an increase or decrease of the number of carriers assigned to a radio head by the CMU when routing traffic, it does not reconfigure (change) the configuration of the remote radio head itself. As we noted in our analysis of the claim construction of this term, the plain language of the claim requires that the remote radio head itself be reconfigured. Petitioner’s analysis does not address how Hettstedt discloses reconfiguring the remote radio unit itself.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We are unpersuaded that we misconstrued the phrase “reconfiguring each remote radio unit by.” Petitioner’s proposed claim construction in the Rehearing Request does not give patentable weight to the claimed “reconfiguring each remote radio unit.” Although we agree with Petitioner that claim 1 requires limitations [b] and [c] (i.e., “determining a load percentage” and “increasing or decreasing the number of carriers”), we disagree with Petitioner that the term “by” before limitations [b] and [c] would require what comes before “by” to have no patentable weight. Rather, as stated in our Decision: we adopt the district court’s construction and construe “reconfiguring each remote radio unit” to be “changing the configuration of each remote unit.” We additionally note that the claim term requires that it is the remote radio unit itself that is changed because the “remote radio unit” is the direct object of the verb “reconfiguring.” This is consistent with the specification of the ’338 patent, which describes reconfiguring the RRUs themselves. Dec. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–13, 7:16–31, 8:8–21, 8:48–55, 11:28–39).” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In its rehearing request, Petitioner now newly argues that we overlooked Hettstedt’s disclosure that remote radio heads are channel-selective in the uplink (i.e., column 5, lines 6–8 of Hettstedt). But Petitioner’s new analysis and explanation that Hettstedt’s teaches “reconfiguring each remote radio unit head” because its radio units are channel selective in the uplink was not presented in the Petition, and we could not have overlooked arguments or evidence not before us.2 See 37 C.F.R. 42.71(d). A petition must include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). We are not persuaded of any error in our Decision that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that claim 1 is anticipated by Hettstedt. See Dec. 13–15. 2 We acknowledge Petitioner’s reliance on Hettstedt’s column 5, lines 6–8 on page 21 of the Petition; however, the Petition relied on this portion of Hettstedt for Element F of claim 1 (“configuring each remote radio unit to receive or transmit a respective subset of the plurality of carriers, each respective subset of the plurality of carriers including a number of carriers”), not for Element G of claim 1 (“reconfiguring each remote radio unit by . . .”). See Pet. 21. Petitioner’s Rehearing Request also points to reliance on Hettstedt’s column 5, lines 6–8 on page 10 of the Petition and in paragraphs of Dr. Acampora’s testimony (see Req. Reh’g 6–8 (citing Pet. 10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–54)), however (i) page 10 of the Petition and paragraphs 46–52 of Dr. Acampora’s testimony are not addressing the “reconfiguring each remote radio unit” limitation, and (ii) while paragraphs 53–54 of Dr. Acampora’s testimony addresses the “reconfiguring each remote radio unit” these paragraphs do not reference Hettstedt’s column 5, lines 6–8. See Pet. 10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–54.” slip op. at 4
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 8,682,338 - ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 13, 2021 · IPR2019-01595 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution on claims 1 and 2, finding no abuse of discretion on priority entitlement or motivation to combine Darbee and Golender.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the challenging party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in a 1 Petitioner also filed a request for the Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) to review the Decision (Paper 13 (Notification of Receipt of POP Request)), which the POP denied (Paper 14 (Order)). paper of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Because Petitioner seeks rehearing of our Decision denying institution of trial based on the Petition, it must show an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (“When 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). Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“issue upon which the priority determination turns—what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art—because Dr. Medvidovic did not provide any testimony on that issue. And we did not overlook or misapprehend any testimony of Dr. Medvidovic regarding what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art because we could not have overlooked or misapprehended any testimony that was not presented in the Medvidovic Declaration. As discussed above, Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony based on what is expressly disclosed in or necessarily follows from the disclosures of the priority applications was insufficient because Dr. Medvidovic did not explain adequately why the disclosures in the priority applications would not reasonably have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the User Action Limitation. Thus, Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Bear, provided detailed testimony and explanations regarding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the priority applications to describe the subject matter recited in the User Action Limitation (see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 111–122, 126–127), Dr. Medvidovic did not provide adequate testimony or explanations to the contrary on the issue (see Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 53–63).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“misapprehend or overlook 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The mere fact that Dr. Medvidovic provided testimony different from the testimony of Mr. Bear does not by itself raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The mere existence in the record of dueling expert testimony does not necessarily raise a genuine issue of material fact.”). As the Request acknowledges, Dr. Medvidovic in his Declaration (Ex. 1010, “Medvidovic Declaration”) testified that the subject matter of the User Action Limitation is “neither expressly disclosed [in] nor necessarily follows from” the descriptions in the priority applications about event journal data. Req. 3 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 57–62). As discussed above, however, the test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351. The record shows that Dr. Medvidovic did not provide any testimony in his Declaration as to what the disclosures in the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 53–63. Nor did Dr. Medvidovic explain adequately in his Declaration why the disclosures in the priority applications would not reasonably have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the User Action Limitation. See id.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, however, “less education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 64–67). As stated in the Bear Declaration, Mr. Bear’s work experience includes at least 9 years of computer software programming using a variety of coding languages, such as BASIC, Pascal, C, C++, and 68000 Assembly Language. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–12. Thus, Mr. Bear is qualified to testify from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art under Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. As discussed in the Decision, although we did not find the parties’ proposals for the level of ordinary skill in the art to be materially different, to the extent the testimony from the parties’ declarants on the level of ordinary skill in the art raised a genuine issue of material fact, we adopted and applied Petitioner’s definition for purposes of the Decision, being mindful of the rule that “a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” Dec. 9 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)). Thus, the record shows that, under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in consideration of § 42.108(c), the Decision appropriately credited Mr. Bear’s testimony on what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,015,446 - Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC / Fresenius Kabi Swissbiosim GmbH v. Coherus Biosciences, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2021 · PGR2019-00064 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing requests, leaving in place denial of institution based on the merits of the written-description and enablement challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. DISCUSSION A party requesting rehearing has the burden to show a decision should be modified by specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise 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. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s arguments are unpersuasive because our construction of “stable” does not exclude the preferred embodiments. As Petitioner acknowledges, “[t]he Board did not construe ‘stable’ to be limited to formulations that are as stable as Humira or lose 20% of activity upon storage.” Id. at 3. Although our construction encompasses the “most” preferred embodiment (e.g., those that do not lose more than 5% of their activity during two years of long-term storage), it also encompasses other embodiments that are considered less preferred but nonetheless within the scope of what is defined to be “stable” in the specification, i.e., compositions that do “not lose more than 20%, or more preferably 15%, or even more preferably 10%” of activity. Ex. 1001, 9:28–33. Furthermore, consistent with the specification, our construction of “stable” encompasses embodiments in which stability is determined by comparison to the commercial formulation of adalimumab known in the prior art, i.e., Humira. Decision 8–9. We find no basis to construe “stable” to be limited to the only most preferred embodiment by requiring a loss of no more than 5% activity. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating “a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment”).” slip op. at 3
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not shown unpatentable
“These arguments are also unpersuasive. As stated in the Decision: [W]e find that the specification provides a detailed disclosure of the testing used to assess stability (using Humira as the control), and identifies specific ingredients to be included and excluded from the claimed composition, and further identifies the pH that is necessary to achieve the claimed stability. Although there may be certain concentrations of adalimumab or certain types of buffers and sugars that may render the compositions more difficult to stabilize, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why a POSA would not have known how to adjust or select those ingredients in order to achieve the claimed stable aqueous pharmaceutical composition. Decision 17. As further stated in the Decision: Moreover, even if a POSA would have needed to test whether a particular composition was stable, “[t]he fact that some experimentation is necessary does not preclude enablement; what is required is that the amount of experimentation ‘must not be unduly extensive.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Indeed, even “a considerable amount of experimentation is permissible, if it is merely routine, or if the specification in question provides a reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed to enable the determination of how to practice a desired embodiment of the invention claimed.” Id. (citing Ex parte Jackson, 217 USPQ 804, 807 (BPAI 1982)). Id. at 17–18. Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that we committed legal or factual error in making the foregoing determinations. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in determining that Petitioner did not satisfy its burden with respect to the lack of enablement ground for claims 1–12.” slip op. at 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable
“the specification identifies with sufficient clarity each of the ingredients that must be included as part of the claimed composition (i.e., adalimumab, a buffer, polysorbate 80, and a sugar) and further provides a reason to exclude the ingredients that must not be included in theclaimed composition (i.e., mannitol, a citrate/phosphate buffer combination, and sodium chloride). Id. at 13–14. The Decision also explained how one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventors possessed the claimed invention: Patent Owner identifies teachings in the specification indicating the structural features required for achieving a stable adalimumab composition, which include: 1) avoiding the citrate/phosphate buffer combination in favor of another more stable buffer (such as an acetate buffer); 2) including polysorbate 80 as a stabilizer; 3) removing sodium chloride (NaCl) from the formulation; 4) using a sugar or polyol as the tonicity modifier in place of mannitol/NaCl; and 5) maintaining a pH of at least 5 (with an optimal pH near 5.2). Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:42–44, 21:40–47, 37:25–38:4, 38:1–7, 61:24–25). Patent Owner further asserts, and we agree, that the specification “provides working examples that demonstrate comparable or superior stability to the commercial Humira® formulation” and that Petitioner fails to demonstrate why a POSA would doubt that the formulations that demonstrated improved stability relative to Humira would be stable. Id. at 60–61. Id. at 14. Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that we committed legal or factual error in making the foregoing determinations. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in determining that Petitioner did not satisfy its burden with respect to the lack of written description ground for claims 1–12.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,155,039 - Satco Products, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., LtdRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 8, 2020 · IPR2020-00248 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show that Sanga disclosed the claimed spacer-layer bandgap requirement.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“support of its assertion that Sanga’s n-side multilayer has a bandgap lower than a GaN layer. Reh’g Req. 10–12. For example, Petitioner attempts to rely on an annotated figure from Exhibit 2005, an exhibit submitted by Patent Owner with its Preliminary Response. Reh’g Req. 10–12. Although we did refer to Exhibit 2005 in our Decision (Dec. 13–14), Petitioner did not rely on Exhibit 2005 in its Petition, and the annotated figure Petitioner presents in the Rehearing Request, along with the corresponding arguments, are entirely new. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Even if we were to consider Petitioner’s newly annotated figure and the accompanying discussion in the Rehearing Request, we note that it is composed entirely of attorney argument. Reh’g Req. 10–12. There is no testimony from Petitioner’s declarant regarding the figure, the annotations, or conclusions drawn therefrom. We further note that none of the alleged superlattice structures shown on Figure 26 of Ex. 2005 match the composition of Sanga’s GaN/In0.03Ga0.97N n-side multilayer 10 in Example 1 that Petitioner relies upon. As such, on the present record, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s ultimate conclusion that “regardless of the precise bandgap of the multilayer structure, even very low indium content in part of a superlattice structure causes the bandgap of the overall structure to be lower than the ~3.5eV bandgap of a GaN layer.” Reh’g Req. 12.” slip op. at 9
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We further note that for purposes of the bandgap requirement of the spacer layer limitation, Petitioner relies on the specific barrier layer, spacer layer, and quantum well layer described for Example 1. Pet. 35–36 (comparing the bandgap of the In0.03Ga0.97N layer of Example 1 with the GaN barrier layer of Example 1 and the In0.3Ga0.7N quantum well layer of Example 1). Example 1 does not expressly include an n-side multilayer structure with an InxGa1-xN/InyGa1-yN configuration, wherein each layer contains indium and x<y≤ 0.1. Therefore, Petitioner’s analysis of the bandgap requirement for claim 9, which expressly relies on Sanga Example 1, requires replacing the actual spacer layer in Example 1 with a different layer, while keeping the barrier layer and quantum well layer the same for purposes of bandgap comparison. Petitioner, however, has not provided adequate justification for doing so. Petitioner’s citation to Sanga’s general disclosure of “a multilayer having a periodic structure repeating InxGa1-xN/InyGa1-yN (0≦x<y<1)” in support of its InGaN/InGaN stack argument is unhelpful. Reh’g Req. 3. We acknowledge that this statement discloses the use of stacked InGaN layers of varying indium composition in general. But Petitioner does not direct us to bandgap values for this generic periodic structure, and to arrive at the bandgap requirement of the spacer layer limitation of claim 9, Petitioner refers back to Example 1, and its analysis of the bandgap values of the specific barrier layer, spacer layer, and quantum well layer disclosed therein. As such, we are not persuaded this general disclosure of Sanga cures the deficiencies discussed above.” slip op. at 6
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In its Rehearing Request, Petitioner presents new arguments in support of its assertion that Sanga’s n-side multilayer has a bandgap lower than a GaN layer. Reh’g Req. 10–12. For example, Petitioner attempts to rely on an annotated figure from Exhibit 2005, an exhibit submitted by Patent Owner with its Preliminary Response. Reh’g Req. 10–12. Although we did refer to Exhibit 2005 in our Decision (Dec. 13–14), Petitioner did not rely on Exhibit 2005 in its Petition, and the annotated figure Petitioner presents in the Rehearing Request, along with the corresponding arguments, are entirely new. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Even if we were to consider Petitioner’s newly annotated figure and the accompanying discussion in the Rehearing Request, we note that it is composed entirely of attorney argument. Reh’g Req. 10–12. There is no testimony from Petitioner’s declarant regarding the figure, the annotations, or conclusions drawn therefrom. We further note that none of the alleged superlattice structures shown on Figure 26 of Ex. 2005 match the composition of Sanga’s GaN/In0.03Ga0.97N n-side multilayer 10 in Example 1 that Petitioner relies upon. As such, on the present record, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s ultimate conclusion that “regardless of the precise bandgap of the multilayer structure, even very low indium content in part of a superlattice structure causes the bandgap of the overall structure to be lower than the ~3.5eV bandgap of a GaN layer.” Reh’g Req. 12.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“bandgap requirement to the spacer layer as a whole, but Patent Owner argued that this requirement should be construed such that it requires all the layers comprising the spacer layer to meet the bandgap requirement. Reh’g Req. 6. Petitioner, however, never identifies any particular matter that we misapprehended or overlooked in connection with this argument. Furthermore, Petitioner did not propose a construction of the bandgap requirement in the Petition (Pet. 7–20), and Patent Owner argued that Petitioner’s arguments fail regardless of how the bandgap limitation is construed (Prelim. Resp. 36). In this regard, we note that in our Decision we determined that we did not need to construe the bandgap requirement. Dec. 6.” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,716,210
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.