- Apple Inc. v. Memoryweb, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 10, 2022 · IPR2022-00111 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the patent was likely subject to the AIA’s nine-month IPR waiting period, and the petition was filed less than six months after grant.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied time barInstitution denied
“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 under chapter 32, the date of the termination of such post-grant review.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(c). Similarly, our rules require that, for patents described in section 3(n)(1) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011) (“AIA”), a petition for inter partes review must be filed no earlier than nine months after the date of the grant of the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a)(1). Patents subject to the AIA first-inventor-to file provisions are those that issue from applications “that contain or contained at any time— (A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in section 100(i) of title 35, United States Code, that is on or after [March 16, 2013]; or (B) a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of title 35, United States Code, to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim. AIA § 3(n)(1). slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,017,020 - Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp Computing AsInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · PGR2021-00101 · APJ Garth D Baer · PGR · Institution
The Board denied post-grant review of claims 1, 7, 9, 16, 22, and 24 because the patent is not eligible for PGR as a pre-AIA patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Act (“AIA”)5 apply only to AIA patents, which are patents that have an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See AIA §§ 3(n)(1); 6(f)(2)(A). Pre-AIA patents—those with effective filing dates before March 16, 2013—are not eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,951,632 - Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp Computing AsInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · PGR2021-00100 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · PGR · Institution
The Board denied post-grant review of claims 1, 9, 16, and 24 because the patent is pre-AIA and ineligible for post-grant review.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“III. ELIGIBILITY FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW The post-grant review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”)4 apply only to AIA patents, which are patents that have an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See AIA §§ 3(n)(1); 6(f)(2)(A). Pre-AIA patents—those with effective filing dates before March 16, 2013—are not eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,951,632 - Google LLC v. Videoshare LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2021 · CBM2020-00027 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution of CBM review for claims 1–7 because the patent did not qualify as a covered business method patent; it did not reach the § 101 challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (challenged patent eligible for review because the claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy” that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). Thus, “§ 18 (d)(1) directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340. More specifically, the focus is on the claims to determine whether there is anything “explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language.” Id. The claims of the ’341 patent are directed to “[a] method for sharing video over a structured hierarchical network.” Ex. 1001, 25:14–15. We are not persuaded that this a financial activity. We agree with Patent Owner that the focus of the claims is video sharing technology. Prelim. Resp. 21. The claims describe a series of method steps for sharing video content involving servers and video files. Nowhere do the claims discuss or suggest obtaining payment or remuneration. Thus, the claims are unlike those in Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d 1331. In Blue Calypso, the claims expressly recited the term “subsidy,” which the Board construed as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Id. at 1339–40. The Federal Circuit explained that based on this understanding, the Board had concluded that the claims “were financial in nature” and instituted CBM review. Id. at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis and affirmed its decision to institute CBM patent review: “Significantly, Blue Calypso has not challenged the Board’s interpretation of subsidy as ‘financial assistance given by one to another.’” Id.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (challenged patent eligible for review because the claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy” that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). Thus, “§ 18 (d)(1) directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340. More specifically, the focus is on the claims to determine whether there is anything “explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language.” Id. The claims of the ’341 patent are directed to “[a] method for sharing video over a structured hierarchical network.” Ex. 1001, 25:14–15. We are not persuaded that this a financial activity. We agree with Patent Owner that the focus of the claims is video sharing technology. Prelim. Resp. 21. The claims describe a series of method steps for sharing video content involving servers and video files. Nowhere do the claims discuss or suggest obtaining payment or remuneration. Thus, the claims are unlike those in Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d 1331. In Blue Calypso, the claims expressly recited the term “subsidy,” which the Board construed as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Id. at 1339–40. The Federal Circuit explained that based on this understanding, the Board had concluded that the claims “were financial in nature” and instituted CBM review. Id. at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis and affirmed its decision to institute CBM patent review: “Significantly, Blue Calypso has not challenged the Board’s interpretation of subsidy as ‘financial assistance given by one to another.’” Id.” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached
“E. Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not eligible subject matter for a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 77. According to Petitioner, “[t]he claims recite the abstract idea of including advertising with appropriately formatted video.” Id. at 80. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner has failed to show that the claims recite ineligible subject matter. Prelim. Resp. 64. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he ’341 Patent claims recite specific steps that improve the functioning of a video server providing shared video files.” Id. Because we have determined that the ’341 patent does not qualify for covered business method patent review, we do not address whether the claims recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 11
§ 101 eligibilityDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,362,341 - Microsoft Corporation v. Science Applications International CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2020 · IPR2019-01311 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied the petitions because the government was Microsoft's privy and had been served with infringement complaints more than one year before filing; it also denied review under § 314(a).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner
“The evidence here shows that the government and Petitioner share such interests. Before requesting inter partes review, the government had a preexisting, established relationship with Petitioner. In particular, Patent Owner has an ongoing infringement lawsuit against the government in the Court of Federal Claims. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1025, (“the Complaint”)). Petitioner entered into the Contract with the government to develop a system incorporating the allegedly infringing feature. Id. Therefore, both Petitioner and the government share a common interest in canceling the allegedly infringed claims.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“existing substantive legal relationship. This provides at least one ground of nonparty preclusion under Taylor. We further determine, as discussed below, that two other Taylor factors support our privity determination. 2. “where special statutory schemes foreclose successive litigation by the nonparty” A special statutory scheme applies here under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which bars institution of an IPR if a “privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent” more than one year before the petition was filed. Moreover, we note that the government, according to a recent Supreme Court case, is not a “person” that can file a Petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311. Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019). Thus, Petitioner’s filings are the only filed Petitions from which the government could benefit, because the government could not file its own petition in light of the June 10, 2019, Return Mail decision.” slip op. at 11
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“D. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER SECTION 314(A) Institution of inter partes review is discretionary. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018) (“[Section] 314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question whether to institute review . . . .” (emphasis omitted)); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). “[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even if Petitioner and the government were not in privity, we would exercise our discretion to deny review to avoid any concerns that the government is obtaining a benefit to which it is not permitted under Return Mail.” slip op. at 13
- ExcludeGranted
“All papers are available for public access by default. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1). A party may file a concurrent motion to seal, and the information at issue is sealed pending the motion’s outcome. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). For instance, we consider whether the movant has adequately shown that (1) the information sought to be sealed is truly confidential, (2) a concrete harm would result upon public disclosure, (3) there exists a genuine need to rely in the trial on the specific information sought to be sealed, and (4) on balance, an interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having an open record.” slip op. at 14
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,787,012
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.