• Arconic Technologies LLC v. Novelis Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · May 2, 2022 · DER2018-00004 · APJ James T Moore · DER · Rehearing

  The Board denied Arconic’s rehearing request, leaving in place denial of institution because it had not shown sufficiently corroborated prior conception for derivation.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “documents cited by Petitioner for each of the six steps of claim 22 and explained why they were insufficient to corroborate Mr. Marinelli’s testimony. Id. at 16–22. We concluded that “[s]ubstantial evidence does not support Petitioner’s assertion that its inventors conceived of the inventions allegedly communicated to Respondent’s inventors (i.e., the six-step processes of each of Respondent’s claims)” and denied institution of a derivation proceeding. Id. at 23.” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “[w]e are not informed as to which of Mr. Marinelli, Mr. Dennis, and Mr. Shoemaker conceived what portions of the invention of claim 22 or how the three individuals jointly conceived of the recited process. Petitioner provides no explanation as to what the contributions of each individual were (other than that they were all “involved” in the development of the A951 process), the circumstances surrounding those contributions, or even when conception occurred. Indeed, Mr. Marinelli testifies that Petitioner began development of chromium-free aluminum pretreatments that provided the same performance characteristics of a chromate conversion coating in 1992 and that the development work spanned “the next two decades,” but does not explain when during that time he conceived of the process of claim 22 with Mr. Dennis and Mr. Shoemaker. Again, there is no meaningful information provided about what work was done by whom or the circumstances under which the claimed invention was conceived, other than a general assertion that it was Petitioner undertaking the work.” slip op. at 3

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

    “a trial, a party may file a motion to expunge confidential information from the record.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.56. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 21–22, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“Trial Practice Guide”), provides: Confidential information that is subject to a protective order ordinarily would become public 45 days after denial of a petition to institute a trial or 45 days after final judgment in a trial. There is an expectation that information will be made public where the existence of the information is referred to in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute a review or is identified in a final written decision following a trial. A party seeking to maintain the confidentiality of information, however, may file a motion to” slip op. at 13

  None
  Patents in suitUS 11,807,942
• Sports Nutrition Research, Ltd. v. Chemi NutraRehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 3, 2020 · DER2013-00001 · APJ Jameson Lee · DER · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner showed no abuse of discretion in finding insufficient evidence of derivation.

  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 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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). After considering the Request for Rehearing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that we abused our discretion in denying institution. For reasons discussed below, we decline to modify the Decision. Accordingly, the Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 2

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

    “In essence, Petitioner is arguing that a derivation proceeding should always be instituted no matter how deficient is the initial evidence presented by Petitioner in the Petition, because both Petitioner and Respondent can submit evidence after institution of trial. We disagree. In the above-quoted argument, Petitioner is referring to hypothetical evidence “to be” developed during trial. We cannot make a decision on whether to institute trial based on non-existent evidence. We properly reviewed the evidence submitted by Petitioner and determined that that evidence does not meet the substantial evidence standard for instituting a derivation proceeding.” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for patent owner

    “The constitutional arguments are without merit. The Federal Circuit has held that there is “no constitutional infirmity in [an] institution decision as the statute clearly bestows such authority on the Director pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314.” Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1340. Arthrex’s reasoning likewise applies to derivation proceedings under the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. § 135(a)(1). The Decision will not be vacated. Nor will a new panel be appointed.” slip op. at 11

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

    “of the MPEP. Paper 17, 4. These authorities, however, articulate general principles and do not support Petitioner’s assertion that the specific wherein clause at issue here represents merely an intended result and thus should not be accorded weight in determining patentability. Indeed, in Hoffer, the Court upheld the district court’s reading of the “whereby clause” at issue there as an actual limitation and not merely an intended result.3 Hoffer, 405 F.3d at 1330. “[W]hen the ‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. at 1329.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 10,869,843
• Aragen Bioscience, Inc. / Transposagen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2018 · IPR2017-01262 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show the prior art disclosed or enabled access to the mammalian FUT8 gene sequence required by claims 1–6.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 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 Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “6, 2000 concerning the means and methods for creating cells in which the gene for the fucose-adding enzyme fucosyltransferase was knocked out, resulting in a modified sugar chain giving improved antibodies.” See id. at 12; Ex. 1026 ¶ 12. But Dr. Jefferis provides no definitive statement with respect to the availability of DNA encoding a mammalian α1,6- fucosyltransferase, focusing, instead, on the “basic enabling techniques described in the patent claims.” See Ex. 1026 ¶ 12; see also id. ¶ 14 (discussing statement in prosecution history “that construction of gene constructs and knock-out CHO cells were ‘standard methods’ in the prior art”). Accordingly, we do not find Dr. Jefferis’s testimony relevant to the availability of a mammalian FUT 8 gene sequence. Dr. Van Ness, in contrast, referenced “the known genetic sequence of the α1,6-fucosyltransferase gene,” after asserting that “[t]he human fucosyltransferase gene sequence had been cloned in 1994 by Sasaki et al. (269(20) J. BIOL. CHEM. 14730–37 (1994)).” Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 40, 73. As discussed in our Decision, Sasaki does not disclose a mammalian α1,6- fucosyltransferase recited in claim 1, but an α1,3-fucosyltransferase. Dec. 17. As such, Sasaki fails to support Dr. Van Ness’s generic reference to “the known genetic sequence of the α1,6-fucosyltransferase gene.” Because neither Dr. Van Ness nor Petitioner presented any evidence demonstrating how that the nucleotide sequence of an α1,3-fucosyltransferase teaches or suggests that of α1,6-fucosyltransferase recited in claim 1, we accorded little weight to Dr. Van Ness’s opinion. Id.” slip op. at 6

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,425,446
• Aragen Bioscience, Inc. / Transposagen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2018 · IPR2017-01254 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 1–5 because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 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 Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “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”)). Because Petitioner raised none 1 Genbank entry AB025198.1. “Mus musculus mRNA for alpha-1,6- fucosyltransferase, complete cds,” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore /%20AB025198. 2 Yanagidani et al., Purification and cDNA Cloning of GDP-i-Fuc:N-acetyl- β-d-glucosaminyl fucosyltransferase (α1-6FucT) from Human Gastric CancerMKN45 Cells, 121 J. Biol. Chem. 626-632 (1997). 3 Naofumi Uozumi, Purification and cDNA Cloning of Porcine Brain GDPL-Fuc:N-Acetyl-β-D-Glucosaminide α1→6Fucosyltransferase, 271 J. Biol. Chem. 27810-27817 (1996). of the above arguments in the Petition, nor timely submitted any of Exhibits 1039, 1042, and 1043, Petitioner has not established that we misapprehended or overlooked this evidence. Cf. DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866– 67 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “of Drs. Van Ness and Jefferis. Req. Reh’g 12–14 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 18–20, 40–43, 77; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 11–13). With respect to the latter, Petitioner points to Dr. Jefferis’s statement that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had knowledge of the scientific literature no later than October 6, 2000 concerning the means and methods for creating cells in which the gene for the fucose-adding enzyme fucosyltransferase was knocked out, resulting in a modified sugar chain giving improved antibodies.” See id. at 12; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. But Dr. Jefferis provides no definitive statement with respect to the availability of DNA encoding a mammalian α1,6-fucosyltransferase, focusing, instead, on the “basic enabling techniques described in the patent claims.” See Ex. 1026 ¶ 12; see also id. ¶ 13 (discussing statement in prosecution history “that construction of gene constructs and knock-out CHO cells were ‘standard methods’ in the prior art”). Accordingly, we do not find Dr. Jefferis’s testimony relevant to the availability of a mammalian FUT 8 gene sequence. Dr. Van Ness, in contrast, referenced “the known genetic sequence of the α1,6-fucosyltransferase gene,” after asserting that “[t]he human fucosyltransferase gene sequence had been cloned in 1994 by Sasaki et al. (269(20) J. BIOL. CHEM. 14730–37 (1994)).” Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 40, 68. As discussed in our Decision, Sasaki does not disclose a mammalian α1,6- fucosyltransferase recited in claim 1, but an α1,3-fucosyltransferase. Dec. 16–17. As such, Sasaki fails to support Dr. Van Ness’s generic reference to “the known genetic sequence of the α1,6-fucosyltransferase gene.” Because neither Dr. Van Ness nor Petitioner presented any evidence demonstrating how the nucleotide sequence of an α1,3-fucosyltransferase teaches or suggests that of α1,6-fucosyltransferase recited in claim 1, we accorded little weight to Dr. Van Ness’s opinion. Id.” slip op. at 5

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,067,232
• Aragen Bioscience, Inc. / Transposagen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2018 · IPR2017-01252 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 1–12 because the petition did not establish access to the necessary mammalian FUT8 genetic material.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 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 Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

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

    “isolated fucosyltransferase knock-out host cell.” Consistent with Patent Owner’s position, we construed the fucosyltransferease knock-out as “a disruption of FUT8, the gene encoding α1,6-fucosyltransferase.” Dec. 13. In denying the Petition, we found that Petitioner did not establish that the prior art disclosed or rendered obvious the challenged claims because it failed to present sufficient evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had access to the necessary genetic starting material. Dec. 19– 24. In particular, we determined that “Petitioner fails to establish adequately that DNA encoding a mammalian α1,6-fucosyltransferase was either available, or could be routinely obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 24. According to Petitioner, our finding is “clearly erroneous” and based on “misunderstandings about the record evidence, as well as a failure to weigh, in full, unrebutted expert testimony before the Board.” Req. Reh’g 1. We do not find Petitioner’s argument persuasive.” slip op. at 3

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “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”)). Because Petitioner raised none of the above arguments in the Petition, nor timely submitted any of Exhibits 1 Genbank entry AB025198.1. “Mus musculus mRNA for alpha-1,6- fucosyltransferase, complete cds,” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore /%20AB025198. 2 Yanagidani et al., Purification and cDNA Cloning of GDP-i-Fuc:N-acetyl- β-d-glucosaminyl fucosyltransferase (α1-6FucT) from Human Gastric CancerMKN45 Cells, 121 J. Biol. Chem. 626-632 (1997). 3 Naofumi Uozumi, Purification and cDNA Cloning of Porcine Brain GDPL-Fuc:N-Acetyl-β-D-Glucosaminide α1→6Fucosyltransferase, 271 J. Biol. Chem. 27810-27817 (1996). 1038, 1041, and 1042, Petitioner has not established that we misapprehended or overlooked this evidence. Cf. DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866– 67 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “the fucose-adding enzyme fucosyltransferase was knocked out, resulting in a modified sugar chain giving improved antibodies.” See id. at 12; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. But Dr. Jefferis provides no definitive statement with respect to the availability of DNA encoding a mammalian α1,6-fucosyltransferase, focusing, instead, on the “basic enabling techniques to create the modified-antibody-producing mammalian cells described in the patent claims.” See Ex. 1026 ¶ 12; see also id. ¶ 13 (discussing statement in prosecution history “that construction of gene constructs and knock-out CHO cells were ‘standard methods’ in the prior art”). Accordingly, we do not find Dr. Jefferis’s testimony relevant to the availability of a mammalian FUT 8 gene sequence. Dr. Van Ness, in contrast, referenced “the known genetic sequence of the α1,6-fucosyltransferase gene,” after asserting that “[t]he human fucosyltransferase gene sequence had been cloned in 1994 by Sasaki et al. (269 (20) J. BIOL. CHEM. 14730–37 (1994)).” Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 40, 77. As discussed in our Decision, Sasaki does not disclose a mammalian α1,6- fucosyltransferase recited in claim 1, but an α1,3-fucosyltransferase. Dec. 20–21. As such, Sasaki fails to support Dr. Van Ness’s generic reference to “the known genetic sequence of the α1,6-fucosyltransferase gene.” Because neither Dr. Van Ness nor Petitioner presented any evidence demonstrating how the nucleotide sequence of an α1,3-fucosyltransferase teaches or suggests that of the α1,6-fucosyltransferase recited in claim 1, we accorded little weight to Dr. Van Ness’s opinion. Id.” slip op. at 6

  None
  Patents in suitUS 6,946,292
• Michael J. Sindoni, Jr. v. Deyan Ninov, Joseph S. Dehner, And Gregory A. HowellInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2017 · DER2016-00003 · APJ Jameson Lee · DER · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition lacked substantial evidence of derivation for any challenged claim, including sufficient proof of conception, communication, and the required claim comparisons.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The threshold showing for institution of a derivation proceeding is whether the petition demonstrates substantial evidence that, if unrebutted, would support the assertion of derivation.4 35 U.S.C. § 135(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(c). A petitioner must show that the respondent, without authorization, filed an application claiming a derived invention. 35 U.S.C. § 135(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(b)(2). The party asserting derivation must establish prior conception of an invention and communication of that conception to an inventor of the other party. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Hedgewick v. Akers, 497 F.2d 905, 908 (CCPA 1974). The showing of communication must be corroborated. 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(c). Assuming that corroborated conception and communication both are established, a petitioner would be able to regard as a derived invention those” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenDenied

    “B. The Alleged Invention – Conception and Communication First, Petitioner has not sufficiently specifically identified the features of an invention that he allegedly conceived. The closest the Petitioner comes to doing that are these two statements in the Petition: (1) “Petitioner Sindoni conceived of a major advance in the pickup truck equipment field”; and (2) “[T]his invention, which in brief is a ramp system for a pickup truck, was communicated to Respondent by Sindoni before Respondent filed the ’123 application.” Pet. 3, 16. We do not understand the position of Petitioner to be that Mr. Sindoni conceived of the very first ramp system for a pickup truck. An Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Petitioner during prosecution of the ’548 Application identifies three prior art references disclosing a ramp system for a pickup truck, i.e., U.S. Patent Nos. 3,976,209; 4,624,619; and 7,445,268. Ex. 3002. Also, Petitioner’s ’548 Application generally refers to preexisting ramps for pickup trucks and characterizes them as unsatisfactory. Ex. 1002 ¶ 5. Yet, neither the Petition nor the Declaration of Mr. Sindoni sets forth any particular feature of the “ramp system for a pickup truck” that Petitioner allegedly conceived, much less the entirety of what Petitioner has conceived. This deficiency alone dooms the Petition, because we do not know what was conceived by Petitioner. Second, Petitioner has not sufficiently identified the features of any invention that he allegedly communicated to Respondent. The closest the Petitioner comes to doing that are these two statements in the Petition: (1) “[T]his invention, which in brief is a ramp system for a pickup truck, was communicated to Respondent by Sindoni before Respondent filed the ’123 application”; and “Petitioner disclosed the invention to Respondent to this end, and Respondent acknowledged receipt of the disclosure.” Pet. 3, 16. The Petition does not, however, point to corroborating evidence of communication or evidence of how Respondent has acknowledged receipt of Petitioner’s conceived “invention” at any time. The Declaration of Mr. Sindoni, the Petitioner, is no better. Mr. Sindoni testifies: “Details of the invention were communicated to FCA US LLC by me more than a year before FCA US LLC filed the Chrysler application and more than two years before the Sindoni application was filed.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 7 (emphasis added). However, Mr. Sindoni in his Declaration nowhere identifies or explains the referenced “[d]etails of the invention.” Submitted by Petitioner as Exhibit 1006 is a document that appears to be signed by Mr. Sindoni and a representative of an entity named “U.S. Patent Commission,” that pertains to disclosure by Mr. Sindoni of an invention to U.S. Patent Commission at some time. But that document has not been addressed in the declaration testimony of Mr. Sindoni. Nor is there a declaration from Angela Stevens, the individual who signed on behalf of U.S. Patent Commission, addressing the document. Thus, it has not been authenticated. Also, although the Petition generally refers to Exhibit 1006 as “Petitioner’s Invention Disclosure,” (Pet. 9–14), we do not know specifically what subject matter the Petitioner possibly had conceived because the Petitioner makes no averment in that regard. Furthermore, the content of Exhibit 1006 has not been explained either in the Petition or in the Declaration of Mr. Sindoni. Pages 4 and 5 of Exhibit 1006 appear to contain technical illustrations but are substantially illegible. On May 3, 2017, we issued an Order (Paper 7) stating: “[I]f Petitioner can provide a more legible copy of the last two pages of Exhibit 1006, then another full copy of Exhibit 1006, including the more legible last two pages, shall be filed within two weeks of the date of this communication.” Paper 7, 3. Petitioner filed no replacement copy of Exhibit 1006. We note also that the signature of Angela Stevens, on behalf of U.S. Patent Commission, on page 1 of Exhibit 1006, is undated, and Petitioner submitted no declaration of Angela Stevens to substantiate and explain her signature, e.g., when she received the document. In any event, Petitioner makes no explanation as to the relationship, if any, between U.S. Patent Commission and Respondent. We decline to assume that they are the same entity. Thus, we will not assume communication with U.S. Patent Commission is the same as communication with Respondent. For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is fatally deficient with regard to the” slip op. at 5

  None
  Patents in suitUS 9,067,525
• Duane Brockman v. Wesley BainterInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 11, 2017 · DER2016-00002 · APJ Jameson Lee · DER · Institution

  The Board denied institution of a derivation proceeding because the petition did not provide substantial evidence that the challenged claims were the same or substantially the same as the invention conceived and communicated.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “required to show (1) that the challenged claims are drawn to the same or substantially the same invention as the invention he disclosed to Respondent, (2) that Petitioner has at least one claim that is the same or substantially the same as the Respondent’s claimed invention, and (3) that Petitioner has at least one claim that is the same or substantially the same as the invention Petitioner disclosed to the Respondent. For these requirements, the Petition contains only a general citation to “Ex. 1003; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1005.” Pet. 7–11. As noted above, Exhibit 1003 is a declaration from Petitioner; Exhibit 1004 is a declaration of Tyler Brockman; and Exhibit 1005 is an affidavit of Scott Sproul. None of the testimony from Petitioner, Tyler Brockman, and Scott Sproul, however, addresses the specifics of any claim. With regard to the first requirement, it cannot simply be assumed that the challenged claims are drawn to the same or substantially the same invention as that which Petitioner has conceived and communicated to Respondent. The Petitioner provides no reasoning or analysis in that regard. Several features in the challenged claims demand a meaningful accounting by Petitioner, relative to the invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent. Challenged claims 1, 2, and 6 are independent and all other challenged claims depend, directly or indirectly, from one of claims 1, 2, and 6. Claim 1 requires an actuator, mounted to an irrigation tower and separate from the anchor member, that has a retracted position and an extended position. According to claim 1, the anchor member is mounted to the actuator. Also according to claim 1, when the actuator is in its retracted position, the anchor member is retracted above the soil surface, and when the actuator is in its extended position, the anchor member penetrates the soil surface. The invention conceived by Petitioner and as communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such actuator. More particularly, lacking from the Petitioner’s conceived and communicated invention is a sufficient disclosure or description of an actuator that, itself, translates between extended and retracted positions, and lacking from the Petition is any reasoning to account for the obviousness of such a feature to one with ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, claim 2 requires a motor, in an actuator, that is slidably mounted to the frame for movement between a retracted position and an extended position. The invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such actuator and motor, and the Petition does not account for such a feature. Claim 6 requires a motor movably mounted to a frame for translation between a retracted position and an extended position, and a control unit that causes both the motor and the anchor member to move from a retracted position to an extended position and from an extended position to a retracted position. The invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such motor and control module, and the Petition does not account for such a feature.” slip op. at 8

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied

    “II. Discussion In its Response to the Show Cause Order, Petitioner argues that 35 U.S.C. § 135 does not require a petitioner’s involved application to be maintained after a derivation petition has been filed, that Petitioner’s entire purpose for filing the Petition was for the Board to direct that “the Petitioner be added as a named inventor [in] Respondent[’s] Application,” and that “the Respondent be removed as a named inventor from the Respondent Application.” Paper 6, 1–2. Under the circumstances here, we do not enter adverse judgment against Petitioner for having abandoned the ’929 Application. Hereinafter, we discuss the merits of the Petition for purposes of determining whether a derivation proceeding should be instituted.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “required to show (1) that the challenged claims are drawn to the same or substantially the same invention as the invention he disclosed to Respondent, (2) that Petitioner has at least one claim that is the same or substantially the same as the Respondent’s claimed invention, and (3) that Petitioner has at least one claim that is the same or substantially the same as the invention Petitioner disclosed to the Respondent. For these requirements, the Petition contains only a general citation to “Ex. 1003; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1005.” Pet. 7–11. As noted above, Exhibit 1003 is a declaration from Petitioner; Exhibit 1004 is a declaration of Tyler Brockman; and Exhibit 1005 is an affidavit of Scott Sproul. None of the testimony from Petitioner, Tyler Brockman, and Scott Sproul, however, addresses the specifics of any claim. With regard to the first requirement, it cannot simply be assumed that the challenged claims are drawn to the same or substantially the same invention as that which Petitioner has conceived and communicated to Respondent. The Petitioner provides no reasoning or analysis in that regard. Several features in the challenged claims demand a meaningful accounting by Petitioner, relative to the invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent. Challenged claims 1, 2, and 6 are independent and all other challenged claims depend, directly or indirectly, from one of claims 1, 2, and 6. Claim 1 requires an actuator, mounted to an irrigation tower and separate from the anchor member, that has a retracted position and an extended position. According to claim 1, the anchor member is mounted to the actuator. Also according to claim 1, when the actuator is in its retracted position, the anchor member is retracted above the soil surface, and when the actuator is in its extended position, the anchor member penetrates the soil surface. The invention conceived by Petitioner and as communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such actuator. More particularly, lacking from the Petitioner’s conceived and communicated invention is a sufficient disclosure or description of an actuator that, itself, translates between extended and retracted positions, and lacking from the Petition is any reasoning to account for the obviousness of such a feature to one with ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, claim 2 requires a motor, in an actuator, that is slidably mounted to the frame for movement between a retracted position and an extended position. The invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such actuator and motor, and the Petition does not account for such a feature.” slip op. at 8

  None
  Patents in suitUS 9,215,847
• Johns Manville Corporation / Johns Manville, Inc. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc. And Knauf Insulation SPRLInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2015-01598 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds because Petitioner did not clearly articulate the differences or show the proposed combinations would meet the challenged claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “D. Claims 3, 16–21, 27, 34, 43, 45–49, 51–56, 63, and 73 1. Failure to articulate a clear difference Petitioner has failed to set out precise differences between Swift and the subject matter of the challenged claims. As we explained in declining to institute on Ground 2 in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01402 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2015) (Paper 18, pages 12–14), failure of a petitioner to set out differences in a § 103 context complicates consideration of a petition, both for the Board and the patent owner. Due to Petitioner’s failure to articulate a clear difference between the subject matter of the challenged claims and Swift, we decline to institute an IPR trial in this case. See also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (petition identifies with particularity) and 37 C.F.R. 41.104(b)(4) (set out how claim is unpatentable).” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use an ammonium phosphate in place of ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of mono-ammonium phosphate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 27 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1004, col. 1:72. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change to something that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a block made according to Example 3 with ammonium phosphate would have properties that might differ from those made in accordance with Example 3 with ammonium sulfate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using mono-ammonium phosphate, would meet claim 27 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The testimony in support of obviousness of the subject matter of claim 27 is that of Dr. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1006, ¶ 105: At the time of the purported invention of the ’089 Patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate to the binder composition of Example 3 of Gogek in order to reduce the corrosivity of the binder and preserve . . . manufacturing equipment. In the continuous manufacturing process disclosed in Swift, some manufacturing equipment will be in contact with the solution at all times, amplifying the need to include a corrosion inhibitor to extend the life of the manufacturing equipment. Accordingly, in order to prevent corrosion and “decrease the cost of manufacturing bound materials” (Ex. 1003, ¶ [0073]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a mono-ammonium phosphate as disclosed in Swift to the binder of Example 3 of Gogek to inhibit corrosion. Assuming arguendo that Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations are correct, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use an ammonium phosphate in place of ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of mono-ammonium phosphate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 27 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1004, col. 1:72. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change to something that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a block made according to Example 3 with ammonium phosphate would have properties that might differ from those made in accordance with Example 3 with ammonium sulfate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given” slip op. at 11

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,940,089
• Netflix, Inc. v. Opentv, IncRehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2014 · IPR2014-00274 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Netflix’s rehearing request, leaving in place its denial of inter partes review of claims 1–20 because the petition did not show it was more likely than not to prevail.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing. 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 grant the request to reconsider the decision insofar as we have reconsidered the decision, but decline to modify our previous decision.” slip op. at 2

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

    “III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met its burden to show it is more likely than not to prevail. We, therefore, deny the request for reconsideration.” slip op. at 7

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

    “This argument does not persuade us to alter our earlier decision. The newly proposed interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of claim 1 reciting that the “browser retrieves the requested Internet information segments under the direction and control of the controller means.” Ex. 1001, col. 13:60-63. An embodiment allowing a user the flexibility to go back to access a list of URLs at the user’s leisure after the presentation does not alter the requirement that the controller means drives the presentation during the audio or video program.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,018,768

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.