- 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 - Sma Solar Technology America, LLC v. Tigo Energy, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 2, 2024 · IPR2023-01175 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied SMA’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–20 because the request showed no overlooked matter, misapplication of law, or abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Rule 42.71(d) states: 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, a reply, or a sur-reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence. Moreover, “[w]hen 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
“patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.”). Our Institution Decision analyzed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and determined that Petitioner provided no persuasive argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Mieth’s load 20 is a micro-controller—i.e., that the claimed micro-controller reads onto Mieth’s load 20. Inst. Dec. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1014, 1180, Fig. 5; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 102–103). The Request, as did the Petition, misapplies the anticipation analysis by arguing that a micro-controller is a load, rather than persuasively arguing that Mieth’s load is the claimed micro-controller. Id. at 10–12; Req. 8. None of Petitioner’s evidence or arguments explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that load 20 disclosed in Mieth is a micro-controller. As such, Petitioner has not shown any material error in our decision that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Mieth.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“reads on the micro-controller recited in the claims of the ’848 patent” (Req. 6), the test for anticipation is not whether the prior art reads on the claims, but rather whether the claims read on the prior art. See Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.”). Our Institution Decision analyzed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and determined that Petitioner provided no persuasive argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Mieth’s load 20 is a micro-controller—i.e., that the claimed micro-controller reads onto Mieth’s load 20. Inst. Dec. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1014, 1180, Fig. 5; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 102–103). The Request, as did the Petition, misapplies the anticipation analysis by arguing that a micro-controller is a load, rather than persuasively arguing that Mieth’s load is the claimed micro-controller. Id. at 10–12; Req. 8. None of Petitioner’s evidence or arguments explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that load 20 disclosed in Mieth is a micro-controller. As such, Petitioner has not shown any material error in our decision that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Mieth. slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“D. Petitioner’s Section 103 Argument Petitioner argues throughout the Request that Mieth also discloses the “micro-controller” limitation under 35 U.SC. § 103. See Req. 7, 9–11, 13– 15. As explained above, however, the Request does not identify any matters that the Board misapprehended or overlooked. We addressed Petitioner’s obviousness arguments in our Institution Decision, and determined that those arguments failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its arguments that Mieth and Balogh, or Mieth, Balogh, and Liu, teach or suggest the claimed “micro-controller” limitation. Inst. Dec. 13–15.” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,966,848 - Tomofun, LLC v. Doggyphone LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 10, 2021 · IPR2021-00260 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show the Board overlooked or misapprehended its arguments or abused its discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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. We review our Decision under an abuse of discretion standard. 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). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” OSI Pharm., LLC v. Apotex” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Claim(s) Ground 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Challenged 1 7 102(b) Alasaarela1 2 8 103(a) Alasaarela 3 7–9 102(b) Beccaria2 4 7–9 103(a) Carelli,3 Beccaria 5 7–9 103(a) Bloksberg,4 Beccaria Pet. 4. Petitioner asserts that Alasaarela discloses the audio signal limitation for Grounds 1 and 2. Id. at 23–24, 31. Petitioner asserts that Beccaria discloses the audio signal limitation for Ground 3, and Carelli discloses the audio signal limitation for Ground 4. Id. at 36–37, 48. For Ground 5, Petitioner asserts that Bloksberg discloses the audio signal limitation. Id. at 60.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“As such, the Petition does not indicate with sufficient particularity that Petitioner relies on the Examiner’s finding as a basis for asserting that Bloksberg discloses the audio signal limitation and, thus, does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden on this point. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also Intelligent Bio- Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). Because the Petition did not indicate clearly that it was relying on the Examiner’s finding, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked such a position. In addition, Patent Owner was not afforded a fair opportunity to dispute any reliance on the Examiner’s finding or the reasoning underlying the finding.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of Ground 3 as being based on obviousness. Rather, the Petition clearly asserts for Ground 3 that “Claims 7-9 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Beccaria[].” Pet. 4; see also id. at 32 (“Ground 3 – Claims 7–9 Are Unpatentable As Anticipated By Beccaria[]”). Petitioner’s Ground 3 analysis of claim 7 relies on Beccaria disclosing each limitation, including the audio signal limitation. Id. at 32–40. Petitioner’s Rehearing Request does not direct us to any portion of the Petition for Ground 3 that asserts any claim limitation would have been obvious over Beccaria, alone or in combination with another reference. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended Petitioner’s argument with respect to Beccaria.” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,723,813 - 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 - Shenzhen Mediatek Tong Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Noco CompanyRehearing deniedPTAB · May 17, 2021 · IPR2020-01387 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 1–3, 5, 8–17, 19–21, and 23 because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion.
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 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 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 or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not reached
“We recognize that Paragraph 50 of Zhang describes two ways to measure the voltage “at the two terminals” of the vehicle battery, and the other way is by the small teeth of the output power clip. Ex. 1006 ¶ 50. But Zhang describes the two ways as occurring “at the same time,” and not as alternative implementations. Thus, measurements at both points are taken to obtain the voltage at the two terminals of the vehicle battery. Dr. Hartup does not address or explain how a measurement can be taken at the input terminal of the DC contactor that would be indicative of the voltage of the external vehicle battery connected to the output terminal of the DC contactor, if the DC contactor is not already closed. Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. The Petition does not address Zhang’s disclosure of measuring the voltage of the vehicle battery on the input side of the DC contactor at the same time a measurement is taken by the small teeth of the output power clip. Paper 9, 33 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“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 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 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 or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,007,015 - Energysource Minerals, LLC v. Terralithium LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 6, 2020 · IPR2019-01601 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained denial of institution for claims 9–16, finding the petition insufficient on anticipation by Maimoni and Jost and related obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters that the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“the pH to an adjusted level of between 4.5 and 6.5. All that Dr. Gallup testifies to is that the “[g]iven the pH of the feed brine [i.e., between 5.2 and 6.1 (Table 1) or 5.6 (Table 2). EX 1004, at 9-10], pH values [as claimed] occur as a result of the air oxidation and introduction of calcium hydroxide.” Id. As we stated in the Decision, we do not see how this statement is anything but a “conclusory assertion[ ] backed up by no objective evidence, such as experimental results establishing the adjusted pH of Maimoni’s geothermal brine.” Dec. 24. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded as to error in our conclusion that “Petitioner insufficiently establishes that Maimoni anticipates, expressly or inherently, the claim 9 step of ‘maintaining the pH of the geothermal brine solution at an adjusted pH of between 4.5 and 6.5.’” (Dec. 26) based on reason (1); that is, Petitioner’s apparent inherency argument made in the Petition, as well as the Gallup Declaration upon which the argument relied, were inadequate (Dec. 21–25).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“[u]nder these circumstances, where Jost raises the possibility of forming iron (III) hydroxide, while raising a doubt that iron (III) hydroxide even exists – we find that Jost does not describe, expressly or inherently, oxidizing to iron (III) hydroxide as claimed. At best, Jost is ambiguous about oxidizing to iron (III) hydroxide. But ambiguous references do not, as a matter of law, anticipate a claim See Wasica Finance GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added) (“Anticipation requires that a single reference ‘describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.’ Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). For this reason, it has long been understood that ambiguous references do not, as a matter of law, anticipate a claim. See, e.g., W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (refusing to find claims anticipated when the prior art references were ‘unacceptably vague’); see also In re Hughes, 52 CCPA 1355, 345 F.2d 184, 188 (1965); In re Turlay, 49 CCPA 1288, 304 F.2d 893, 899 (1962) (‘It is well established that an anticipation rejection cannot be predicated on an ambiguous reference.’)”). Because Jost discloses only the possibility of iron (III) hydroxide and no other evidence has been provided to show that Jost nevertheless necessarily oxidizes to iron (III) hydroxide as claimed, based on the information, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the Jost reference anticipates, expressly or inherently, the claim step of “oxidizing the iron (II) salt to iron (III) hydroxide.” “Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“an explanation as to how “the Hazen process discussed by Maimoni describes a step of maintaining and controlling the pH of the geothermal brine at an adjusted pH of between 4.5 and 6.5, as required by Claim 9” (Pet. 44). But “[t]here is no explanation” (Dec. 24). We reproduced ¶ 162 of the Gallup Declaration in the Decision (see Dec. 23–24), which states in full that The step in the Hazen process of sparging the brine with air (Stream 6) in the iron reactor will reduce the pH. The reduction of the pH is offset by the introduction of calcium hydroxide (Stream 5) to the iron reactor. In my opinion, the Hazen process discussed by Maimoni describes a step of maintaining and controlling the pH of the geothermal brine at an adjusted pH of between 4.5 and 6.5. Given the pH of the feed brine, these pH values occur as a result of the air oxidation and introduction of calcium hydroxide. We did not and still do not see Dr. Gallup providing any meaningful explanation as to why the steps of sparging and the addition of calcium hydroxide per the Hazen process set forth in Maimoni necessarily maintains the pH to an adjusted level of between 4.5 and 6.5. All that Dr. Gallup testifies to is that the “[g]iven the pH of the feed brine [i.e., between 5.2 and 6.1 (Table 1) or 5.6 (Table 2). EX 1004, at 9-10], pH values [as claimed] occur as a result of the air oxidation and introduction of calcium hydroxide.” Id. As we stated in the Decision, we do not see how this statement is anything but a “conclusory assertion[ ] backed up by no objective evidence, such as experimental results establishing the adjusted pH of Maimoni’s geothermal brine.” Dec. 24. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded as to error in our conclusion that “Petitioner insufficiently establishes that Maimoni anticipates, expressly or inherently, the claim 9 step of ‘maintaining the pH of the geothermal brine solution at an adjusted pH of between 4.5 and 6.5.’” (Dec. 26) based on reason (1); that is, Petitioner’s apparent inherency argument made in the Petition, as well as the Gallup Declaration upon which the argument relied, were inadequate (Dec. 21–25).” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,051,827 - Vizio, Inc. v. Polaris Powerled Technologies, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Sep 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00043 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing but denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“We have considered Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and, for the reasons set forth below, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, but we are not persuaded to change our ultimate conclusion to deny institution of inter partes review. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). 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.” Id. When rehearing a decision on petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“III. DISCUSSION OF THE REQUEST FOR REHEARING On May 4, 2020, we issued our Decision denying institution of inter partes review based upon: (1) the advanced stage of the California District Court proceeding; (2) the investment of time and resources by the District Court and the parties in the California District Court proceeding; (3) overlap in the invalidity theories that Petitioner is pursuing here and in the California District Court proceeding; and (4) overlap in the claims challenged in the California District Court proceeding. Inst. Dec. 6–12. In the Decision, we did not reach any of the ten substantive grounds for patentability. See generally Inst. Dec. Rather, the denial of institution was solely based on our findings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and 37 C.F.R. §42.4. Institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “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) (2012); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”) For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the arguments and evidence of record, we are not persuaded to change our ultimate conclusion to deny institution of inter partes review.7” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDenied
“The petition must identify with particularity each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) (content of petitions); 37 C.F.R. 42.104 (content of petition). Petitioner’s conclusory statements, without more, are irreparably lacking in detail. Petitioner does not provide any analysis to support the assertion of obviousness over Oki. In fact, Petitioner instead asserts that Oki discloses all of the limitations in each of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 15, 16, and 18, so it is unclear what modification, if any, is required to Oki, or even the basis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds. E.g., Pet. 28– 33. Petitioner does not clearly point out the differences between the claimed invention and Oki. Nor does Petitioner explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed subject matter obvious in spite of those differences. Petitioner has not provided sufficient reasoning or facts on which to base a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, in light of Oki’s disclosure, to modify Oki to meet the claim limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on this ground of unpatentability.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,223,117 - PTAB · Jun 26, 2020 · IPR2019-00235 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show Flinchbaugh I was publicly accessible before the patent’s effective filing date.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). 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.” Id. We review our Decision denying institution under an abuse of discretion standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if 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).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In the Decision, we determined Petitioner had failed to establish sufficiently that Flinchbaugh I is prior art to the ’912 patent. Id. at 10–12. In particular, we determined that neither the Petition nor the evidence cited therein, which included the Original Florio Declaration, supported Petitioner’s contention that Flinchbaugh I was disseminated or otherwise accessible to the public before the effective filing date of the ’912 patent. Id. at 11–12. Because each of the asserted grounds of unpatentability relied upon Flinchbaugh I, we found Petitioner did not show a reasonable 1 Flinchbaugh et al., Autonomous Scene Monitoring System, Proceedings of the Joint 10th Annual Government-Industry Security Technology Symposium & Exhibition, June 20–23, 1994, pp. 205–209. (Ex. 1005, “Flinchbaugh I”). likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, and we determined not to institute an inter partes review. Id. at 12.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner
“or printed publications.” Whether a reference qualifies as a “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the effective filing date. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A reference is considered “publicly accessible” upon a satisfactory showing that the 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.” Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).” slip op. at 4
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,868,912 - Apotex Inc. / Apotex Corp. v. Celgene CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 30, 2020 · IPR2018-00685 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d) for grounds I and II and for failure to establish printed-publication status for ground III.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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.”” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“presented in the petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10 (Feb. 13, 4 2020) (precedential). Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. If the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated the Office erred. Id. In evaluating the Petition and accompanying evidence in light of the Becton, Dickinson factors, we determined that grounds I and II were “based on substantially the same prior art and arguments previously presented to the office,” and that Petitioner had “neither sufficiently pointed out how the Examiner erred, nor provided additional evidence or facts that warrant reconsideration of the Examiner’s decision.” Inst. Dec. 26. Accordingly, we exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and denied institution of grounds I and II on that basis.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“we determined that the Petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition, and declined to institute an inter partes review on any of the three grounds asserted. Specifically, with respect to grounds I and II, we declined to institute pursuant to our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 22–26. With respect to ground III, we determined that Petitioner had not met its burden of establishing that the Celgene Press Release was available as a printed publication. Id. at 27–31.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“we determined that the Petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition, and declined to institute an inter partes review on any of the three grounds asserted. Specifically, with respect to grounds I and II, we declined to institute pursuant to our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 22–26. With respect to ground III, we determined that Petitioner had not met its burden of establishing that the Celgene Press Release was available as a printed publication. Id. at 27–31.” slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,741,929 - In-Depth Geophysical, Inc. / In-Depth Compressive Seismic, Inc. v. Conocophillips CompanyRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 30, 2020 · IPR2019-00849 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left institution denied for claims 1–6 because Petitioner did not show Li was a printed publication.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“On request for rehearing, the burden of showing a decision on whether to institute trial should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For reasons discussed below, we decline to modify the Decision. Thus, Petitioner’s Request is denied.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate at the institution stage a reasonable likelihood that a reference is a printed publication by a preponderance of the evidence. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”). Petitioner presented no additional evidence supporting its contentions, for example from someone familiar with the publication of Li or the referenced web pages, or even an explanation by Petitioner or a declarant that provided a countervailing argument to the SEG process and procedure for publication outlined by Dr. Aminzadeh in his Declaration. Instead, Petitioner simply points to purported “publication dates,” with no substantive explanation or fact witness corroboration. Req. Reh’g (citing Ex. 1020, Ex. 1021, Ex. 1026, Ex. 1030).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate at the institution stage a reasonable likelihood that a reference is a printed publication by a preponderance of the evidence. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”). Petitioner presented no additional evidence supporting its contentions, for example from someone familiar with the publication of Li or the referenced web pages, or even an explanation by Petitioner or a declarant that provided a countervailing argument to the SEG process and procedure for publication outlined by Dr. Aminzadeh in his Declaration. Instead, Petitioner simply points to purported “publication dates,” with no substantive explanation or fact witness corroboration. Req. Reh’g (citing Ex. 1020, Ex. 1021, Ex. 1026, Ex. 1030). Although documents indicating a publication date of 1 September 2012 may have relevance, absent additional evidence explaining the origin and meaning of that date as to public accessibility, on the record before us, the date alone fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Li was 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. This is especially true in the face of Dr. Aminzadeh’s unrebutted testimony as to SEG’s regular practices surrounding the acceptance and dissemination of SEG conference papers. While his testimony may not speak directly to a date of public accessibility for Li itself, it is relevant, uncontroverted, and probative of accessibility to SEG papers in general, given the bare “1 September 2012” date relied on by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Petitioner to the extent that Dr. Aminzadeh did not attest to personal knowledge of the Li paper. Dr. Aminzadeh however provided a credible explanation of the process for authoring and presenting papers at the SEG (Society of Exploration Geophysicists) conference. Dr. Aminzadeh is a member and co-author of SEG papers, as well as a former President of SEG. Ex. 2007 ¶ 3. In our Decision, we explained that [w]e give weight to Dr. Aminzadeh’s testimony because it articulates a reasonable and unrebutted explanation for the September 2012 date listed by Researchgate exhibit. Dr. Aminzadeh’s testimony also persuasively explains how and why the dissemination and first public availability of Li would have most likely not occurred prior to the SEG 2012 Annual Meeting from November 4-9, 2012. Dec. 12. We also stated in our Decision that dissemination “of Li would have most likely not occurred prior to the SEG 2012 Annual Meeting” (id.) because, for one reason, Dr. Aminzadeh’s unrebutted testimony is that “[a]uthors submit papers to the SEG several months before the SEG conference. The papers are kept confidential by the SEG at that time.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 4. Although Dr. Aminzadeh does not testify specifically to knowledge of the Li reference, Petitioner has not explained persuasively why this indicates that Dr. Aminzadeh’s testimony as to the SEG confidentiality practices and paper dissemination, as set forth in his Declaration, is inaccurate or misleading.” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,632,193
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.