• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2022-01103 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Considering the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood that [P]etitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “14 Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 23–39.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Petitioner contends that as of September 15, 2011 (see supra n.1), a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes referred to herein as a “skilled artisan”) “had the equivalent of a graduate degree in pharmaceutics or a related field, and knowledge and experience making oral-dosage formulations. This individual could work with other specialists including, e.g., an M.D., clinical pharmacologist, and medicinal chemist.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Buckton Decl. ¶¶ 81–84). For the purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 42. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner asserts that the claims do not require any construction, but also states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term “inert low moisture carrier,” which appears in claim 1, to include Avicel PH112. Pet. 12. For purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner “does not challenge the claim construction positions set forth in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 41. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms need to be construed. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,616,097
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2022-01105 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Mylan did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “On this record Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of establishing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable as obvious over Shailubhai, Remington, and Mihranyan. We focus our analysis on claim 1’s recitation of “an inert low moisture carrier.”” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenDenied

    “On this record, we find that Petitioner’s reliance on Lai is insufficient to carry its burden for institution. Petitioner and Dr. Buckton generically cite Lai’s first page (page 489), but fail to articulate any specific reason why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a low-moisture MCC carrier in a peptide formulation (let alone in the claimed plecanatide formulation). At most, Lai page 489 is equivocal about the impact of moisture on peptides, stating only that, among other factors, moisture “may impact the chemical stability of proteins and peptides in the solid-state.” Id. (emphasis added). Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Buckton adequately explains how this teaching (or any other teaching in Lai) would have informed a person of ordinary skill in the art that peptides were moisture-sensitive, thereby motivating use of a low-moisture MCC carrier.” slip op. at 13

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

    “to carry its burden for institution. Petitioner and Dr. Buckton generically cite Lai’s first page (page 489), but fail to articulate any specific reason why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a low-moisture MCC carrier in a peptide formulation (let alone in the claimed plecanatide formulation). At most, Lai page 489 is equivocal about the impact of moisture on peptides, stating only that, among other factors, moisture “may impact the chemical stability of proteins and peptides in the solid-state.” Id. (emphasis added). Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Buckton adequately explains how this teaching (or any other teaching in Lai) would have informed a person of ordinary skill in the art that peptides were moisture-sensitive, thereby motivating use of a low-moisture MCC carrier.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Buckton’s testimony does not provide the missing explanation. He merely repeats the Petition’s statement that Lai teaches “peptides in particularly are generally subject to degradation from moisture during storage,” without explaining how Lai supports that conclusion. Buckton Decl. ¶ 104; see also id. ¶ 144. Dr. Buckton also cites Aulton, but again fails to indicate exactly what in Aulton indicates that peptides generally, much less plecanatide specifically, are moisture-sensitive. Id. ¶ 144. Indeed, the cited page of Aulton does not mention peptides at all. See Ex. 1029 (Aulton), 9. On this record, Dr. Buckton’s testimony lacks sufficient explanation and is not persuasive to support Petitioner’s burden for institution. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that Board has discretion to accord little weight to expert’s “broad conclusory statements that it determined were unsupported by corroborating references”).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,925,231
• PNC Bank, N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00050 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–30 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted references qualified as prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Technology, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356,1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 15

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “But, even accepting these premises, we disagree with the conclusion Petitioner asks us to draw from them. In particular, Petitioner appears to contend that we should find that the ’974 application does not provide written description support for the claims of the ’638 patent merely because the scope of the claims includes a configuration that is not expressly described in that document. See Pet. 15–16, 22. But this reflects a misunderstanding of the law—a claim can be broader than the embodiments disclosed. See, e.g., Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344 (“An applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”); see also Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1582 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that a claim may be “literally infringed by undisclosed embodiments” and yet sufficiently supported); Application of Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1384 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“We cannot agree with the broad proposition . . . that in every case where the description of the invention in the specification is narrower than that in the claim there has been a failure to fulfill the description requirement in section 112.”).” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “D. Obviousness Grounds Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1–30 of the ’638 patent would have been obvious over various combinations of Oakes-I, Oakes-II, Medina, and Roach (collectively, “the asserted references”). Pet. 5, 32–100. Petitioner argues that the asserted references are prior art because the claims of the ’638 patent are not entitled to a priority date earlier than July 28, 2017. Id. at 4–5, 11–29. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of success because Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that the asserted references qualify as prior art. Prelim. Resp. 18–59. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that the asserted references are prior art,8 and as a result, Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that any claim would have been unpatentable based on the asserted references.” slip op. at 16

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

    “In the first Joint Motion to Seal, the parties request entry of a Protective Order that is substantially the same as the Board’s Default Protective Order (see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide16 at 107–122 (App. B, Protective Order Guidelines and Default Protective Order)). Paper 9, 2.17 The parties also request sealing of Exhibit 2006 and sealing of portions of the Preliminary Response relating to that exhibit. Id. at 2–3. The portions of the Preliminary Response (Paper 11) requested to be sealed can be identified from the redacted version of the Preliminary Response filed as Paper 12. Based on the representations in the Joint Motion to Seal (Paper 9), the parties have shown good cause for entering the Protective Order and for sealing Exhibit 2006 and the identified portions of the Preliminary Response.” slip op. at 37

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,402,638
• PNC Bank, N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 27, 2022 · IPR2022-00049 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 20 and 22 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted combinations rendered them obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “IV. CONCLUSION The Petitioner has not persuasively established that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the cited references so as to render any of the challenged claims unpatentable. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition would have been obvious. V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), no inter partes review as to any claim of the ’638 patent is instituted; and” slip op. at 26

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

    “Pet. 25–27 (emphasis added) (alterations in original). Although this passage is somewhat lengthy, the only reasons provided for combining the relevant teachings of Garcia and Byrne are “to avoid wasting communications resources and adding delays,” “avoid wasting resources and adding delays,” and “reducing wasteful network transmission and delays.” See id. However, the only argument as to the existence of the alleged motivating waste and delay is: “Garcia sends images by ‘a mobile telephone communications network, for example a GSM/GPRS network. . . A POSITA would have known that such networks are bandwidth and resourceconstrained, and that communications over such networks take[ ] time.” Id. at 25 (quoting Ex. 1103, 11:21–12:1). In the Petition, there is no explanation or reasoning to support concluding, based on Garcia’s statement that images are sent using a mobile telephone communications network, that a skilled artisan would recognize waste and delay even if such networks are bandwidth and resource-constrained and that communications over such networks take time. See id. And, there is no explanation or reasoning for concluding that a skilled artisan would recognize that to “check for errors before the submitting” in the manner taught by Byrne would help alleviate waste and delay in Garcia’s system. The only articulated rationale to combine in the Petition is a simple, unelaborated assertion that a skilled artisan would have known that “networks are bandwidth and resource-constrained” and “communications over such networks take time.” This assertion is too general10 and conclusory to accorded much weight and is inadequate to support the finding of rationale to combine. There is no elaboration in the Petition as to what is meant by this sentence. The Petition fails to explain what pertinent knowledge a skilled artisan would have had and how exactly this would have motivated the combination of the relevant teachings of Garcia and Byrne.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Under the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312– 19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There is a “heavy presumption,” however, that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). We determine we need not explicitly construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached

    “Preliminary Response and Exhibit 2006); Paper 13 (relating to the Reply); and Paper 17 (relating to the Sur-reply). In each of these motions, the parties seek to protect as confidential certain information that relates to the issue of whether Petitioner has properly identified all the real parties in interest in its Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). As we deny the Petition on the merits and do not grant the request to institute an inter partes review, the issue of identification of the real parties in interest to this proceeding is moot. Therefore, we do not reach the arguments and evidence of the parties relating to whether Petitioner identified all the real parties in interest in the Petition, and we make no reference in this Decision to the documents and information that the parties seek to protect as confidential.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,402,638
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Micropairing Technologies LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2022 · IPR2021-01557 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 6, and 10–23 were unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached

    “On this record, we determine that we need not address whether the Unnamed RPIs were improperly excluded because, “even if [they] were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18. Like in SharkNinja, the Unnamed RPIs here are currently members of Unified and some of them may have been accused of infringement of the ’816 patent, but there is no allegation or evidence that any of those members are barred or estopped from this proceeding.8 And although Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner’s failure to identify members funding its activities as real-parties-in-interest raises estoppel issues,” the only estoppel issue that Patent Owner identifies is estoppel that could potentially arise under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) in the future. Prelim. Sur-reply 1-2. However, because we deny institution of inter partes review on the merits (see infra § III.F), there is no estoppel triggered under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) by our decision. In the present proceeding, there is no allegation that Petitioner’s exclusion of the Unnamed RPIs should result in termination of the proceeding or denial of institution of review for any reason other than for the alleged failure to comply with the Board’s rules requiring the identification of RPIs. Additionally, there is no allegation or evidence that any of the Unnamed RPIs is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that Petitioner purposefully omitted any of the Unnamed RPIs to gain some advantage. We” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyNot reached

    “On this record, we determine that we need not address whether the Unnamed RPIs were improperly excluded because, “even if [they] were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18. Like in SharkNinja, the Unnamed RPIs here are currently members of Unified and some of them may have been accused of infringement of the ’816 patent, but there is no allegation or evidence that any of those members are barred or estopped from this proceeding.8 And although Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner’s failure to identify members funding its activities as real-parties-in-interest raises estoppel issues,” the only estoppel issue that Patent Owner identifies is estoppel that could potentially arise under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) in the future. Prelim. Sur-reply 1-2. However, because we deny institution of inter partes review on the merits (see infra § III.F), there is no estoppel triggered under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) by our decision. In the present proceeding, there is no allegation that Petitioner’s exclusion of the Unnamed RPIs should result in termination of the proceeding or denial of institution of review for any reason other than for the alleged failure to comply with the Board’s rules requiring the identification of RPIs. Additionally, there is no allegation or evidence that any of the Unnamed RPIs is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that Petitioner purposefully omitted any of the Unnamed RPIs to gain some advantage. We” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in in-vehicle infotainment systems.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 25–28). Patent Owner does not propose any particular skill level in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. We determine, on the current record, that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’816 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We adopt that level in deciding whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 12

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

    “construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). The claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, we take into account the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–17. Petitioner identifies certain claim terms that were construed in pending district court litigation. Pet. 12–13 (listing constructions for “application,” “audio source,” “multi-processor system,” and “download a copy of a second/fourth software application”). Patent Owner does not address any of these constructions. See Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,953,816
• PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01076 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Oakes was prior art, so it failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–18 were unpatentable over Oakes and Maloney.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner asks us to draw from them. In particular, Petitioner appears to contend that we should find that the ’247 application does not provide written description support for the device limitation merely because the scope of the claim includes a configuration that is not expressly described in that document. See Pet. 17–18, 21. But this reflects a misunderstanding of the law—a claim can be broader than the embodiments disclosed. See, e.g., Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344 (“An applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”); see also Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1582 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that a claim may be “literally infringed by undisclosed embodiments” and yet sufficiently supported); Application of Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1384 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“We cannot agree with the broad proposition . . . that in every case where the description of the invention in the specification is narrower than that in the claim there has been a failure to fulfill the description requirement in section 112.”). There are situations where a claim’s breadth results in a lack of written description support, but Petitioner fails to show that such a situation is present here. In its argument, Petitioner primarily relies on Reckitt, but” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that Oakes is prior art,8 and as a result, Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that any claim would have been unpatentable over Oakes and Maloney.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Preliminary Response and Exhibit 2006); Paper 13 (relating to the Reply); and Paper 19 (relating to the Sur-reply). In each of these motions, the parties seek to protect as confidential certain information that relates to the issue of whether Petitioner has properly identified all the real parties in interest in its Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). As we deny the Petition on the merits and do not grant the request to institute an inter partes review, the issue of identification of the real parties in interest to this proceeding is moot. Accordingly, we do not reach the arguments and evidence of the parties relating to whether the Petitioner identified all the real parties in interest in its Petition and we make no reference in this decision to the documents and information that the parties seek to protect as confidential.” slip op. at 25

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,621,559
• PNC Bank, N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01071 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–23 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Oakes and Roach qualify as prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its 2 US 7,873,200 B1, filed Oct. 31, 2006, issued Jan. 18, 2011 (Ex. 1038). 3 US 2013/0155474 A1, published June 20, 2013 (Ex. 1040). burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “To satisfy the written description requirement [in § 112,] the disclosure of the prior application must ‘convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The sufficiency of written description support is based on “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. “The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement” necessarily “varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. The invention need not be described in haec verba, but a disclosure that merely renders obvious the claims does not provide adequate written description support. Id. at 1352.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered Dr. Noble’s testimony, but it suffers from the same deficiencies as Petitioner’s arguments. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–59. Moreover, in our view, Dr. Noble does not sufficiently explain his conclusions regarding what a person of ordinary skill would have understood the inventor of the ’247 application to possess (or not possess), and accordingly, we assign little weight to that testimony. E.g., id. ¶¶ 47, 53, 55; see TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”).” slip op. at 21

  • ExcludeGranted

    “In the first Joint Motion to Seal, the parties request entry of a Protective Order that is substantially the same as the Board’s Default Protective Order (see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide12 at 107–122 (App. B, Protective Order Guidelines and Default Protective Order)). Paper 9, 2.13 The parties also request sealing of Exhibit 2006 and sealing of portions of the Preliminary Response relating to that exhibit. Id. at 2–3. The portions of the Preliminary Response (Paper 8) requested to be sealed can be identified from the redacted version of the Preliminary Response filed as Paper 11. Based on the representations in the Joint Motion to Seal (Paper 9), the parties have shown good cause for entering the Protective Order and for sealing Exhibit 2006 and the identified portions of the Preliminary Response. Paper 14 (Joint Motion to Seal the Reply) and Paper 19 (Joint Motion to Seal the Sur-reply) request sealing of the portions of the Reply and Sur-reply relating to Exhibit 2006. The portions of the Reply (Paper 13) and Sur-reply (17) requested to be sealed can be identified from the redacted version of the Reply filed as Paper 16 and from the redacted version of the Sur-reply filed as Paper 20. Based on the representations in these two Joint Motion to Seal (Papers 14 and 19), the parties have shown good cause for sealing the identified portions of the Reply and Sur-reply.” slip op. at 27

  § 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,482,432
• SNF S.A. v. Solenis Technologies, L.P.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2021 · IPR2020-01730 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and, despite finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 12 and 13, denied institution because most challenged claims did not meet the threshold and review would be inefficient.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be found 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). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot reached

    “Petitioner offers to waive its arguments with respect to invalidity grounds 2 and 3 if we institute inter partes review. Id. This offer makes our exercise of discretion a closer call, but even absent grounds 2 and 3, granting institution would require that we institute on all claims. We have determined that, for a sizeable majority of challenged claims, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Under the circumstances presented here, we determine it would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources to institute review. See Chevron, Paper 9 at 10–11; Deeper, Paper 7. Accordingly, we exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to decline to institute post-grant review.” slip op. at 11

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “reasons discussed herein and in the Decision, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to challenged claims 1–11 and 14–21. However, based on the preliminary record, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 12 and 13 would have been obvious over the cited art. Accordingly, this case presents the question whether we should exercise our discretion to deny institution. Our decision as to whether discretionary denial is warranted is guided by Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative) and Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Both of these cases explain that “the Board may consider the number of claims and grounds that meet the reasonable likelihood standard when deciding whether to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” Chevron, Paper 9 at 10–11; Deeper, Paper 7 at 42. In Chevron, the panel ultimately exercised discretion to deny institution where “Petitioner demonstrate[d], at most, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to two dependent claims out of a total of twenty challenged claims.” Chevron, Paper 9 at 12. Similarly, in Deeper, the panel exercised discretion to deny institution where Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to only two out of twenty three challenged claims. Deeper, Paper 7 at 43.” slip op. at 10

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

    “art – selecting values within the ranges disclosed in the prior art to calculate a ratio – did not support institution because Petitioner never explained how or why it selected any of the specific values it used to calculate the claimed ratio. Dec. 13. We concluded that Petitioner’s second use of the ranges disclosed in the art – optimizing within the disclosed ranges – did not support institution because the prior art did not disclose that the ratio of WAMW to % DADMAC was a result effective variable (id. at 17) and because Petitioner had not shown that independently optimizing WAMW and % DADMAC would lead to copolymer having the claimed ratio (id. at 17–20).” slip op. at 4

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,644,320
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Electronics And Telecommunications Research InstituteInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 20, 2021 · IPR2021-00827 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 3 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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). Further, a decision to institute may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). We determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached

    “Patent Owner contends that the Petition fails to name all real parties- in-interest (“RPIs”) as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Prelim. Resp. 72– Petitioner’s SEP Video Codec Zone members as RPIs. Id. Because we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing the unpatentability of any challenged claim, we do not reach this issue. C.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill, but delete the qualifier “at least” for the level of education and for the amount of experience, to keep the level from being vague and overbroad and extending into the level of an expert, and delete “or similar advanced post-graduate education in this area” also to keep the level from potentially extending into the realm of an expert. What remains appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For purposes of this Decision, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to that of one who had, on or about April 9, 2010, the level of: (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering or a closely related scientific field, such as physics or computer science; (2) a working knowledge of video coding techniques; and (3) two years of experience with video processing. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “prediction value” Patent Owner asserts that “prediction value” should be construed to mean “a value generated in an intra-prediction process for determination of a prediction block.” Prelim. Resp. 8. We agree. Claims 1 and 3 each recite: when the intra-prediction for the current block is performed, the processor determines whether to apply a second filter to a prediction value of the current block . . . , and applies the second filter to the prediction value of the current block if, as a result of the determination, the second filter is determined to be applied Ex. 1001, 12:18–25, 12:46–53 (emphasis added). The language links “prediction value” to intra-prediction such that it is a predicted value generated inside an intra-prediction process performed on a current block to determine a prediction block for the current block. slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,781,448
• Louisiana-Pacific Corporation v. Huber Engineered Woods LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 20, 2020 · IPR2020-00605 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable under any of its three obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “B. Principles of Law “In an . . . [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner’s challenges are based on obviousness. Pet. 17. A claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedPrinted publication not establishedMixed

    “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) (“Hulu”).5 5 The Decision to Institute in IPR2019-00919, in which many of the references cited in the present case also were at issue, was entered before the Board’s precedential decision in Hulu. Compare IPR2019-00919, Paper 9 (dated Oct. 8, 2019), with Hulu, Paper 29 (dated Dec. 20, 2019). Here, we assess the sufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence as to whether APA, StoGuard- 2001, and StoGuard-2003 qualify as printed publications in view of the guidance provided in Hulu. We note that the Petition was filed on February 19, 2020, such that Petitioner also had the benefit of the guidance provided in Hulu when filing its Petition.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioner submits that the ordinary and customary meaning applies to the claimed terms and does not propose construction of any particular claim term. See Pet. 24. Patent Owner, on the other hand, proposes that the term “the first/second structural/OSB panel comprises a bulk water resistant and water vapor permeable barrier” requires construction. Prelim. Resp. 14. For purposes of this decision, we discern no need to construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe 4 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The parties propose to adopt the same definition that we applied in co-pending IPR2019-00919. See Pet. 24; see also Prelim. Resp. 13. Based on our review of the ’140 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’140 patent and applied prior art, for purposes of this decision, we agree with the parties and determine that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had degree in civil engineering or building, material or wood science, or other degree, if such other degree required coursework or experience in the pertinent technology and two years of industry experience or equivalent therein. See IPR2019-00919, Paper 9, 14.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,702,140

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.