- PTAB · Aug 1, 2017 · IPR2016-01565 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Mylan’s rehearing request, leaving claims 6–8, 10–18, 24, and 25 uninstituted because the Petition did not show the Januvia Label and Huettner were printed publications.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The 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 motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. 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 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. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“a trial is based on “the information presented in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), in an inter partes review, a petitioner may only challenge the claims of a patent based on “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications,” and the petitioner has the initial burden of production to show that an asserted reference is prior art to the challenged claims under a relevant subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Dec. 16. As explained in our Decision, we have often required a petitioner to make a threshold showing that the reference relied upon was publicly accessible as a printed publication prior to the effective filing date of a challenged patent to satisfy the initial burden of production. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., Case IPR2015-00369, slip op. at 5 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2015) (Paper 14) (noting that petitioner has the burden to make a threshold showing that a reference is “printed publication” prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b)); Frontier Therapeutics, LLC v. Medac Gesellschaft Für Klinische Spezialpräparate MBH, Case IPR2016-00649, slip op. at 22 (PTAB September 1, 2016) (Paper 10). We further explained that “[a] given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ ‘upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)); Dec. 17.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“To the extent Petitioner now argues that “the declaration testimony of Dr. Davidson and the facial indicia on Huettner are sufficient” to make a threshold showing that Huettner was publically accessible as of the relevant date (Reh’g Req. 13), we are not persuaded. We note that Dr. Davidson testifies, without elaboration, that “Huettner was published in June 2007.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 56. Petitioner, however, did not rely on Dr. Davidson’s testimony on this issue in the Petition. Moreover, even if Dr. Davidson’s testimony had been relied on, Petitioner does not point to any evidence—nor can we discern any in Dr. Davidson’s Declaration—that would reasonably suggest that Dr. Davidson has personal knowledge as to when and how Huettner was made available to the public. Accordingly, Dr. Davidson’s conclusory declaration of Huettner’s publication date is entitled to little or no weight. See Dell, Inc. v. Selene Commc’n Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014- 01411, slip op. at 22–23 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2015) (Paper 23) (explaining that an expert declaration is not enough to prove a prior art reference’s publication date where the expert declaration merely repeats assertions made by the petitioner).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied merits
“Decision on Institution, and Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, we are not persuaded that we erred in declining to institute trial on claims 6–8, 10–18, 24, and 25. Petitioner, having failed to meet its burden of providing a threshold showing that the Januvia Label and Huettner are printed publications under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b), did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that the subject matter of claims 6–8, 10–18, 24, and 25 of the ’156 patent would have been obvious over the Januvia Label, Huettner, and Mikhail or the Knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art..” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,853,156 - Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’Real Foods, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2016-01105 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1 and 6–11 anticipated by Neilson or claims 1 and 5–11 obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“October 6, 2014—the date the 2014 Complaint alleging infringement of the ’658 patent was served on Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 5, 11. It is undisputed, however, that Patent Owner did not own the ’658 patent at the time the 2014 Complaint was filed and served. Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 7; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 5–7. Title to the ’658 patent was transferred to Patent Owner by an assignment executed January 25, 2016. Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 9; Ex. 1030 ¶ 7, Ex. C (patent assignment). Accordingly, Patent Owner lacked standing to sue for infringement of the ’658 patent at the time the 2014 Complaint was filed and served. Paradise Creations, Inc. v. UV Sales, Inc., 315 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[I]n order to assert standing for patent infringement, the plaintiff must demonstrate that it held enforceable title to the patent at the inception of the lawsuit.”). The patent counts of the 2014 Complaint were jurisdictionally defective, and the defect could not be cured after the filing date of the complaint, e.g., by a subsequent assignment or by joining the patent title holder to the lawsuit. Alps S., LLC v. Ohio Willow Wood Co., 787 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 897 (2016) (“The party asserting patent infringement is ‘required to have legal title to the patents on the day it filed the complaint and that requirement can not be met retroactively.’”) (quoting Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC, 625 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). The Delaware district court was required to—and actually did— dismiss the patent infringement counts of the 2014 Complaint for lack of Article III standing. Ex. 1031 n.1 (Delaware district court order granting motion for voluntary dismissal: “the court lacks jurisdiction to make a judgment on the merits”); see also, Abraxis, 625 F.3d at 1367 (“[T]he action must be dismissed because [plaintiff] lacked standing on the day it filed the action.”); Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. Beatrice Cheese, Inc., 402 F.3d 1198, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[I]f the original plaintiff lacked Article III initial standing, the suit must be dismissed, and the jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by the addition of a party with standing, . . . nor by the subsequent purchase of an interest in the patent in suit.”) (citing Paradise, 315 F.3d at 1309). Thus, the allegation of infringement of the ’658 patent in the 2014 Complaint was not a proper federal pleading and did not trigger the one-year time period under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner was not served with a complaint properly alleging infringement of the ’658 patent until January 2016. The instant petition was filed in May 2016. Accordingly, the Petition is not time-barred under § 315(b).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 1 and 5–11 as unpatentable under § 103. Pet. 9. Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Therefore, institution of an inter partes review is denied.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give 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 re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner and Patent Owner offer competing constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 18–20; Prelim. Resp. 26–35. We determine that only the following claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“position.” During a mixing operation, the ’658 patent describes how the cup holder is reciprocated to move axially upward so the mixing element is in a position within the liquid-filled cup, i.e. the recited “first position,” then reciprocated downward so the mixing element is moved upward to the recited “second position” closer to the opening at the top of the cup, “to allow the blade to pass through the full contents of the cup more than one time.” Ex. 1001, 3:58–64. When the mixing element is moved upward within the cup to the second position, the weight of the splash shield must be sufficient to keep the liquid-filled cup in the cup holder. Id. at 4:3–10 (“heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the cup to overcome any upward force created by the mixing blade being moved upwardly in the cup”). The force generated by upward movement of the mixing element is not further described in the ’658 patent, although the ’658 patent provides a preferred embodiment where a splash shield weighing 5 pounds (dependent claim 5) provides sufficient downward force to perform the recited function. Id. at 4:20–23. Petitioner argues that “sufficient mass” in claim 1 should be construed in accordance with the interpretation allegedly offered by Patent Owner in the dismissed patent action: “the splash shield applies sufficient weight to the top of the cup to retain the cup in the cupholder during mixing.” Pet. 19 (no citation). Petitioner further argues that “the mass of the splash shield” limitation in claim 6 should be construed in accordance with the construction allegedly offered by Patent Owner in the dismissed patent action: “the splash shield applies sufficient weight to the top of the cup to prevent separation of the cup from the cupholder during mixing.” Id. (no citation). Patent Owner responds with a slightly different interpretation of a splash shield having a “sufficient mass”: “heavy enough to retain the vessel within the holder during relative movement of the mixing element and vessel.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:3–24; Ex. 2025 (definition of “sufficient”)). Both parties appear to agree that the ’658 patent describes the “sufficient mass” of the splash shield in functional terms as enough weight to retain the vessel or cup within the holder during mixing. Ex. 1001, 3:65– 4:23. Based on the description provided in the ’658 patent, the claim language at issue in claim 1 – “the splash shield having sufficient mass to retain the vessel within the holder during relative movement of the mixing element and vessel from the first position to the second position when liquid is present in the vessel” – is entitled to its plain and ordinary meaning: “the splash shield is heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the vessel so as to retain the vessel within the holder when the mixing element moves upwardly in the vessel from the first position to the second position when liquid is present.” See Ex. 1001, 4:3–10 (“heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the cup to overcome any upward force created by the mixing blade being moved upwardly in the cup”). The claim language in claim 6 “the mass of the splash shield preventing separation of the holder and the vessel during translation” is similarly construed to mean “the splash shield is heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the vessel so as to prevent separation of the holder and the vessel during translation of the mixing element or holder.”” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,520,658 - Dukane Corporation v. Herrmann Ultraschalltechnik GmbH & Co., KGRehearing deniedPTAB · May 26, 2016 · IPR2016-00066 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place the denial of institution for claims 4, 5, and 7–9 because Petitioner did not show the Board misapprehended or overlooked its arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify 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 meritsInstitution denied
“Regarding the asserted grounds that Klinstein ’158 anticipates claim 8 and the DPC Manual anticipates claims 6–9, we determined that Petitioner “fail[ed] to address the limitations reciting different target variables for the machining intervals,” which was “fatal to [those] unpatentability assertions.” Dec. 9–10. Likewise, we determined that Petitioner’s failure to address the additional “target variable[s] differ” limitation of claim 8 was fatal to the asserted ground that the subject matter of claim 9 (which depends from claim 8) would have been obvious over the combination of Klinstein ’158 and the iQManual. Id. at 10. Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that Klinstein ’158 anticipates claim 6, we determined that, although Petitioner addressed the “target variable[s] differ” limitation, Petitioner failed to explain adequately how the reference discloses that limitation. Id. at 12–13. With respect to the asserted ground that the subject matter of claims 4 and 5 would have been obvious over Klinstein ’816, we determined that Petitioner did not provide “adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings to persuade us, in the absence of hindsight, that one of ordinary skill would have modified the welding method of Klinstein ’816 to achieve the claimed subject matter [i.e., the specific features that claims 4 and 5 add to the subject matter of claim 1].” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Reh’g Req. 5 (citing Pet. 43–53). Petitioner does not direct us to the particular page of the Petition on which it advanced that argument, but, rather, cites ten pages of analysis. After reviewing the cited pages, it appears that Petitioner made the argument in a claim chart to show how the DPC Manual discloses welding variables and target variables, not how the DPC Manual discloses the “target variable[s] differ” limitation. See Pet. 45– 46. Indeed, Petitioner’s claim chart does not address the “target variable[s] differ” limitation. Like the Petition, the claim chart focuses on whether the target values of the target variable differ. Id. at 46. In any event, Petitioner fails to explain how the identification of exemplary target variables set forth in the DPC Manual is an anticipating disclosure of different target variables for each machining interval. In fact, the analysis in the Petition contradicts Petitioner’s argument in this regard because, as explained previously, Petitioner identifies the same variable as corresponding to the first, second, and fifth target variables disclosed in the DPC Manual. Dec. 9 (citing Pet. 57). Petitioner further admits that the DPC Manual discloses “the ‘[c]ontrol parameters [i.e., target variables] for P2 are the same as those used for P1, however the limits set for the parameters are specific to each pressure.’ Thus, the user-specified target values for the first and second control parameters may differ.” Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1005, 81) (emphasis added). Consistent with that description, Figure 7-16 of the DPC Manual illustrates how to set the dual pressure control and depicts the same control parameter (i.e., target variable) for P2 and P1 (i.e., weld time). Ex. 1005, 82. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we overlooked or misapprehended Petitioner’s arguments as to what each of Klinstein ’158, Klinstein ’816, and the DPC Manual discloses.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“detecting a third target variable during the first machining interval and selecting the second target variable depending on the result of the detection. Ex. 1001, 4:52–55. Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and narrows the third target variable to welding time. Id. at 4:56–57. As to these claims, we determined that Petitioner’s argument, which was devoid of discussion and citations to Klinstein ’816, “fails to link the hypothetical detection and selection criteria [that a skilled artisan ‘could have’ used] to any particular teaching, preference, suggestion, or other reasoning derived from Klinstein ’816 and the level of skill in the art.” Dec. 16. We also determined that the Klinstein Declaration “adds no further detail; it merely mirrors the Petition.” Id. Petitioner contends that the entire discussion on pages 31–41 of the Petition relates to the obviousness of claims 4 and 5 from the disclosure of Klinstein ’816. Reh’g Req. 6. As Petitioner concedes in the Rehearing Request, however, “[t]hose pages make it clear, in graphic detail including reproduction of drawings from the [Klinstein] ’816 patent, how claim 1 is anticipated by the [Klinstein] ’816 patent.” Id. (emphasis added). In other words, the analysis on pages 31–41 does not set forth how the additional features of claims 4 and 5 would have been obvious from the disclosure of Klinstein ’816 and the level of skill in the art. Petitioner also repeats in the Rehearing Request essentially the same argument that was raised in the Petition, purporting to establish the link between Petitioner’s hypothetical detection criteria and the disclosure of Klinstein ’816 we found missing from its argument and the Klinstein Declaration. Compare Reh’g Req. 6–7, with Pet. 42 and Ex. 1007 ¶ 55. Petitioner’s argument is no more persuasive on the second telling. That is, Petitioner reargues a case it attempted to make out in the Petition, but fails to point out how we misunderstood its arguments or Mr. Klinstein’s testimony. Accordingly, we are not persuaded we misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s arguments with respect to the asserted ground that the subject matter of claims 4 and 5 would have been obvious over Klinstein ’816.” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,702,883 - Coalition For Affordable Drugs Ix LLC v. Bristol-Myers Squibb CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01723 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was anticipated by or obvious over Fevig I or Fevig II.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“renders the challenged claims of the ’208 patent obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Pet. 54–58. Petitioner’s argument, however, relies in part on the rejection of patent application claims in Fevig II over another prior art reference, the relevance of which is not sufficiently articulated by Petitioner, apart from Petitioner’s discussion of Merck v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Id. at 56–57. More fundamentally, Petitioner’s obviousness argument neither analyzes the facts of the present case in view of the Graham factors nor explains sufficiently why the challenged patent claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417–420 (2007). Petitioner does not offer a proper obviousness analysis, relying instead on a perfunctory reference to its anticipation argument, and arguing that the facts of the present case are “directly analogous to the facts in Merck.” Pet. 56–58.” slip op. at 16
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“technology.” OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2012). On the one hand, “when the class of compounds that falls within the genus is so limited that a person of ordinary skill in the art can ‘at once envisage each member of this limited class,’ . . . a reference describing the genus anticipates every species within the genus.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., 471 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) (emphasis added). However, where “the number of compounds actually disclosed by [the asserted prior art] numbers in the millions (including all proposed alternative substituents),” the prior art genus cannot anticipate a later species claim. Eli Lilly, 471 F.3d at 1376. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to look at any expressed “pattern of preferences” in the prior art, such as preferred embodiments, in assessing the scope of the generic disclosure. See, e.g., Sanofi-Synthelabo, 470 F.3d at 1377. Therefore, to anticipate a later-claimed species, a pattern of preferences or other related teaching or suggestion must lead to a genus small enough that a person of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage the claimed species. Sanofi-Synthelabo, 550 F.3d at 1083; Prelim. Resp. 19–21.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“technology.” OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2012). On the one hand, “when the class of compounds that falls within the genus is so limited that a person of ordinary skill in the art can ‘at once envisage each member of this limited class,’ . . . a reference describing the genus anticipates every species within the genus.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., 471 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) (emphasis added). However, where “the number of compounds actually disclosed by [the asserted prior art] numbers in the millions (including all proposed alternative substituents),” the prior art genus cannot anticipate a later species claim. Eli Lilly, 471 F.3d at 1376. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to look at any expressed “pattern of preferences” in the prior art, such as preferred embodiments, in assessing the scope of the generic disclosure. See, e.g., Sanofi-Synthelabo, 470 F.3d at 1377. Therefore, to anticipate a later-claimed species, a pattern of preferences or other related teaching or suggestion must lead to a genus small enough that a person of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage the claimed species. Sanofi-Synthelabo, 550 F.3d at 1083; Prelim. Resp. 19–21.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“renders the challenged claims of the ’208 patent obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Pet. 54–58. Petitioner’s argument, however, relies in part on the rejection of patent application claims in Fevig II over another prior art reference, the relevance of which is not sufficiently articulated by Petitioner, apart from Petitioner’s discussion of Merck v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Id. at 56–57. More fundamentally, Petitioner’s obviousness argument neither analyzes the facts of the present case in view of the Graham factors nor explains sufficiently why the challenged patent claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417–420 (2007). Petitioner does not offer a proper obviousness analysis, relying instead on a perfunctory reference to its anticipation argument, and arguing that the facts of the present case are “directly analogous to the facts in Merck.” Pet. 56–58.” slip op. at 16
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,967,208
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.