- Charter Communications, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01232 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any obviousness ground; it also found the petition time-barred.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“later than one month after we initially instituted inter partes review in the Comcast IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). As discussed above, however, inter partes review is no longer instituted in the Comcast IPR. Under these circumstances, we do not grant Petitioner’s Joinder Motion because there is no pending proceeding to join. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (“If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition . . . that the Director . . . determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review.”). Petitioner’s Joinder Motion is denied.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“least in part on a second message including at least one command in a second format.’” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1104, 168–173). The cited portion of the prosecution history shows that the applicant distinguished its claims from the prior art based on different first and second formats. The applicant argued in particular, Applicant submits that [the prior art] is completely silent with regard to “receiving, from the remote server device, a first message that includes at least one command in a first format, wherein the first message is received based at least in part on a second message including at least one command in a second format having been sent from the associated remote computing device.” In fact, [the prior art] never describes commands in different formats. . . . Ex. 1104, 170. Based on the applicant’s argument in this regard, we find that the prosecution history limits the scope of claim 1 to different first and second formats. In other words, the applicant’s argument during prosecution distinguishing its claims from the prior art based on different first and second formats overcomes the presumption based on claim differentiation that claim 1 encompasses first and second formats that are the same. See Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’Ship, 778 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Although claim differentiation is a useful analytic tool, it cannot . . . relieve any claim of limitations imposed by the prosecution history.”). Accordingly, claim 1 is limited to different first and second formats.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“argument and evidence. As discussed above in the claim construction section, the recited first and second formats are limited to different formats. See supra Part IV.A. To satisfy this aspect of limitation 1D under its theory, Petitioner needs to show that in Danciu the format of the control information sent from the remote control to the server is different from the format of the control information sent from the server to the controlled device. The cited disclosures in Danciu, however, do not teach or suggest that these formats are different. Nor does Petitioner explain adequately how Danciu’s disclosures teach or suggest the two formats are different. We recognize that the control information in Danciu may be “processed” or “repackaged,” as Petitioner asserts, but it is not clear that the control information is processed or repackaged such that the format of the control information sent from the remote control to the server and the format of the control information sent from the server to the controlled device are different. Petitioner does not rely on Mahajan to teach or suggest the recited first and second formats but relies on Mahajan instead as providing “implementation details for transmission of commands for controlling a client.” Pet. 27. Petitioner contends that its proposed combination of Danciu and Mahajan would have provided a system where “Danciu’s remote control would translate commands associated with a first type of media playing application to a generic format, transmit them to the controlled device, which would translate them to a command associated with a second type of media playing application for execution.” Id. at 31. In other words, the controlled device would receive the generic commands sent from the remote control and then translate the generic commands. It is not clear how the proposed combination in this way teaches or suggests the format of a command sent from the remote control to a server is different from the format of a command sent from the server to the controlled device.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Aldrey and Mahajan meets limitation 1D under Petitioner’s second theory. Petitioner only alleges that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Mahajan’s RTS Media Abstraction Module could operate at a server like Aldrey’s service provider network 103. Pet. 65. The Federal Circuit has explained that “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner does not adequately explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered locating Mahajan’s abstraction module at a server, even if the abstraction module could operate at the server. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”). We note Petitioner further argues that combining Mahajan and Aldrey would have provided a system where “Aldrey’s end terminal would translate commands associated with a first type of media playing application to a command associated with a second type of media playing application on a STB.” Pet. 66–67; see also id. at 66 (“Mahajan’s server-command teachings could be implemented on Aldrey’s end terminal remote control.”). Arguing that Aldrey’s end terminal would translate commands seems inconsistent with Petitioner’s earlier argument for locating Mahajan’s abstraction module (which translates commands) at Aldrey’s network service provider. See id. at 65–67. Moreover, it is not readily apparent how command translation by Aldrey’s end terminal––rather than Aldrey’s network service provider–– teaches or suggests the format of a command sent from the end terminal to the network service provider is different from the format of a command sent from the network service provider to the STB. Petitioner does not close these logical gaps.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,048,751 - MPL Brands NV, Inc. v. Buzzballz, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2024-01000 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the IPR petition was premature while the patent remained within its nine-month post-grant review window and the parallel PGR was instituted.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“For AIA patents like the ’441 patent, a petition for inter partes review “shall be filed after the later of either (1) the date that is 9 months after the grant of a patent; or (2) if a post-grant review is instituted . . . , the date of the termination of such post-grant review.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(c); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a). Here, the ’441 patent issued on March 19, 2024 (see Ex. 1001, code (45)), and PGR2024-00035 is instituted. Petitioner filed the instant Petition on June 7, 2024. As such, the instant Petition is premature because it was filed within nine months of the grant of the ’441 patent and before termination of PGR2024-00035. For this reason, we deny institution of this inter partes review.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“For AIA patents like the ’441 patent, a petition for inter partes review “shall be filed after the later of either (1) the date that is 9 months after the grant of a patent; or (2) if a post-grant review is instituted . . . , the date of the termination of such post-grant review.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(c); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a). Here, the ’441 patent issued on March 19, 2024 (see Ex. 1001, code (45)), and PGR2024-00035 is instituted. Petitioner filed the instant Petition on June 7, 2024. As such, the instant Petition is premature because it was filed within nine months of the grant of the ’441 patent and before termination of PGR2024-00035. For this reason, we deny institution of this inter partes review.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,932,441 - Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v. MHL Custom, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00999 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board denied joinder and denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because the petition was time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“Whether we institute review depends on whether we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. If granted, the one-year bar does not apply. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). If denied, the Petition is time-barred. See id.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“As in Code200 I, Petitioner provides no explanation as to why it did not file a petition seeking inter partes review of the ’659 patent within the one-year window. See generally Mot.; see also Opp. 2 (“Petitioner offers no explanation for why it waited over three years to seek to challenge the patent through IPR proceedings.”). Furthermore, Petitioner provides no explanation as to why joinder would be fair or otherwise in the interests of justice. See generally Mot.; see also Opp. 2 (“Petitioner offers no explanation for how joinder would be fair to, and not otherwise prejudice, Patent Owner.”). Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief under our Rules. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1, 42.20(c). For the forgoing reasons, we exercise our discretion to deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,586,659 - Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v. MHL Custom, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00998 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board denied joinder and denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition was time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“establish that it is entitled to the requested relief.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Regarding joinder, the relevant statute provides that: If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied
“This statute further provides that the petition for inter partes review must be filed no later than “1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). This one-year time bar, however, “shall not apply to a request for joinder.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,359,044 - Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00966 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not explain whether the component limitations invoke § 112(f) or identify corresponding structure, as required by Rule 42.104(b)(3).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide[1,2](“CTPG”) . . . instructs that “[w]here claim language may be construed according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), a petitioner must provide a construction.” CTPG 45 (emphases added) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)). The CTPG advises that a party “may choose to elaborate why § 112(f) should or should not apply to the limitation at issue.” Id. Notably, the CTPG warns that “[a] petitioner who chooses not to address construction under § 112(f) risks failing to satisfy the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” Id.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDenied
“Given these facts, we determine that rule 104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition either identify “the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function” recited in the “component” term limitations or explain why the “component” term limitations are not subject to a means-plus-function construction. This, it fails to do. To be clear, we note that our rules do not prohibit a petitioner from taking inconsistent claim construction positions before the Board and a district court. See 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Labs, Inc., IPR2020- 00086, Paper 8 at 18 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2020). However, where, as here, a petitioner has proposed a claim term be construed solely as a means-plus-function limitation in a district court proceeding and emphasized that the issue is not only “most significant” but potentially “case . . . dispositive,” we determine the petition is obliged to either apply that construction in this proceeding or explain why that construction is not applicable. Accordingly, we find the Petition to be deficient under rule 104(b)(3).4” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Other
“connote a definite structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350 (identifying words such as “mechanism,” “element,” “device,” and others as verbal constructs that do not connote sufficiently definite structures). Indeed, the Specification discloses all of the “components” recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, including the “comparing component,” can be “implemented as a computer having tangible computer-readable media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon.” Ex. 1001, 5:35–43. Thus, like the word “module,” a recognized nonce word, each of the recited “components” is nothing more than “a generic description for software or hardware that performs a specified function” and their recitation “operate[s] as a substitute for ‘means’ in the context of § 112, para. 6.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. Accordingly, we construe the “comparing component” limitation recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 as a meansplus-function limitation whose function is “generating a comparison signal.”2” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelNot reached
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites MarkmanPatents in suitUS 9,333,946 - Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00952 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–18 because the Petition failed to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) by omitting required claim-construction analysis.
RulingsInstitution decision- BurdenDenied
“Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites MarkmanPatents in suitUS 8,989,952 - Luminex International Co., Ltd. v. Signify Holdings B.V.Institution deniedPTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00101 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Menard was a real party in interest served with an infringement complaint more than one year before the Petition was filed.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“Thus, the evidence shows that: (1) Petitioner and Menard are parties to an agreement; (2) under the agreement, Petitioner supplies accused products to Menard; (3) the agreement includes an indemnity provision; (4) under the agreement, Menard made multiple demands for Petitioner to “indemnify or defend as a matter of first defense”; and (5) Petitioner responded to Menard’s multiple demands by, among other things, filing the Petition challenging the claims in the ’336 patent. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 21, 24–26, 28–29, 32–33, 35; Ex. 2002, 5–9 (¶¶ 21, 24–26, 28–29, 32–33, 35); Ex. 2013, 5–9 (¶¶ 21, 24–26, 28–29, 32–33, 35); Ex. 3003 ¶¶ 21, 24–26, 28–29, 32–33, 35. That Petitioner responded to Menard’s multiple demands for Petitioner to “indemnify or defend as a matter of first defense” by filing the Petition shows that the Petition was filed at Menard’s “behest.” Specifically, Menard demanded defense from infringement liability, and Petitioner responded by initiating this proceeding seeking to free Menard from infringement liability for all 20 claims in the ’336 patent. See Pet. 15–89.” slip op. at 36
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“For the real-party-in-interest analysis, we initially consider “whether a petition has been filed at a nonparty’s ‘behest,’” i.e., “the heart of the inquiry.” Uniloc 2017, 989 F.3d at 1027–28; AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351; CTPG at 14. In its third-party complaints, Menard alleged that it and Petitioner “are parties to a Menards Customer Returns, Defective Goods Policy and Conditions of Order Agreement” that requires Petitioner to “indemnify, defend and hold harmless Menard from and against any claims, litigation, or suits,” including “patent infringement arising from Menard’s use, sale or offering for sale of any goods provided by” Petitioner. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 21, 24, 26, 28; Ex. 3003 ¶¶ 21, 24, 26, 28. Menard also alleged that the Conditions of Order Agreement requires Petitioner to “indemnify or defend as a matter of first defense and payment, not as a matter of reimbursement.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 29; Ex. 3003 ¶ 29.” slip op. at 35
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,299,336 - Ubiquiti Inc. v. XR Communications LLC D/B/A Vivato Tech.Institution deniedPTAB · May 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00148 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board denied joinder and denied institution because the target IPR had been terminated and the petition was time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“A threshold issue for joinder is that there must be an inter partes review to which the party seeking joinder can join. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (giving the Director discretion to join the moving party to “that inter partes review,” that is, to the inter partes review that has been instituted).6 The ’613 IPR was terminated on October 3, 2023, more than one month before Petitioner filed the Petition and motion for joinder. Understanding this hurdle, Petitioner moves for us to reopen the ’613 IPR proceeding. Paper 2; see also Paper 3, 1 (“Ubiquiti is filing this motion for joinder concurrently with a motion for leave to file a motion to reopen IPR2022-00613, [and] a petition for inter partes review of the ’376 patent.”). Patent Owner opposes the motion. Paper 9. Petitioner replied to the opposition. Paper 10. In an Order filed concurrently with this Decision, we deny Petitioner’s motion to reopen the ’613 IPR proceeding.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’376 patent on June 21, 2021—over two years before filing the present Petition. See Paper 9, 2; see also Ex. 3001 (providing proof of service); Paper 10 (not disputing Patent Owner’s contention regarding the service date). The AIA statute and our rules permit, at the discretion of the Director, a party to be joined to an inter partes review proceeding even if that party filed its petition after the one-year time bar. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“The time period set forth in § 42.101(b) [that is, the one-year time bar] shall not apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.”). However, as we determine above, we deny Petitioner’s motion for joinder, as there is no inter partes review proceeding to join. As such, the provision allowing an otherwise time-barred petition is not implicated here. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied time barInstitution denied
“CONCLUSION We deny Petitioner’s motion for joinder, as the ’613 IPR proceeding, to which Petitioner seeks joinder, has been terminated and will not be reopened. See Paper 11. Also, because the Petition was filed more than one year after Petitioner was served with a complaint for infringing the ’376 patent, the Petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), and is denied. V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), we deny Petitioner’s motion for joinder; and FURTHER ORDERED that an inter partes is not instituted.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,594,376 - Zimvie, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc. v. Roger P. JacksonInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 26, 2024 · IPR2023-01430 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims 1–22.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied
“Patent Owner has disclaimed all claims of the ’479 patent and paid the requisite fees. See Ex. 2001; see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.321 (setting forth requirements for statutory disclaimer). Accordingly, we deny institution of the requested inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); see also General Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential) (denying institution of inter partes review under rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) based on disclaimer) (“General Electric”). In the present instance, and consistent with Rule 42.107(e) and the Board’s precedential General Electric decision, we determine that a denial of 1 Petitioner has filed three additional inter partes review petitions against three related patents assigned to Patent Owner: IPR2023-01431 (U.S. Patent No. 10,548,641 B2), IPR2023-01432 (U.S. Patent No. 10,898,233 B2), and IPR2023-01433 (U.S. Patent No. 11,129,646 B2). Pet. 1. Petitioner additionally acknowledges that the’479 patent is subject to a pending lawsuit entitled Jackson v. ZimVie Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00891-RGA (D. Del. Filed June 30, 2022). Pet. 1. institution is sufficient to dispose of this case. Because the Board cannot institute trial on disclaimed claims and all the challenged claims have been disclaimed here, no inter partes review will be instituted.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,911,479 - College Products, Inc. v. Intirion CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 7, 2023 · IPR2023-01042 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review for claims 1, 21, 26, and 28 of the ’876 patent because the petitioner’s earlier Iowa declaratory judgment action triggered § 315(a)(1).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherDenied
“The plain language of § 315(a)(1) bars institution of the Petitions because Petitioner’s Iowa DJ action was filed before the Petitions. For the reasons discussed above, the Iowa DJ action is not a counterclaim under § 315(a)(3). Specifically, the Iowa DJ action is a civil action that was filed before the petitions and challenged the validity of the ’206, ’876, and ’374 patents. Therefore, the filing of the Iowa DJ action created a bar to institution of the Petitions under the language of § 315(a)(1). For these reasons, after considering the parties’ evidence and arguments, we determine that § 315(a)(1) bars institution of inter partes review for these proceedings.” slip op. at 10
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“their declaratory judgment action included counterclaims to infringement allegations under § 315(a)(3) because the declaratory judgment complaint was filed after and in response to infringement allegations. Avigilon, Paper 11, 10. The Board determined that “a counterclaim typically is asserted in an existing civil action, in contrast to a complaint, the filing of which begins a civil action.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 (defining counterclaims as distinct from pleadings, including a complaint, set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 7); Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”)). The Board also noted the definition of “counterclaim” as “a defendant’s claim in opposition to or as a setoff against the plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 11 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)). Here, there is no evidence that Patent Owner filed a claim as a plaintiff against Petitioner in the Northern District of Iowa and that the Iowa DJ action was a counterclaim in opposition to or against such a claim. Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner should be precluded from arguing that the Iowa DJ action is not a counterclaim is also not persuasive. Pet. 7. Regardless of whether Patent Owner subsequently argued that the Iowa DJ action was a counterclaim (an argument made in the context of a motion of consolidation), subsequent arguments by Patent Owner would not retroactively transform the Iowa DJ action, which was filed before any claim was filed by Patent Owner against Petitioner in that jurisdiction, into a counterclaim. Thus, we find that Petitioner’s Iowa DJ action was a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of a patent. The plain language of § 315(a)(1) bars institution of the Petitions because Petitioner’s Iowa DJ action was filed before the Petitions. For the reasons discussed above, the Iowa DJ action is not a counterclaim under § 315(a)(3). Specifically, the Iowa DJ action is a civil action that was filed before the petitions and challenged the validity of the ’206, ’876, and ’374 patents. Therefore, the filing of the Iowa DJ action created a bar to institution of the Petitions under the language of § 315(a)(1).” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,274,876
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.