- Walmart Inc. / Walmart Stores Texas, LLC v. Ravenwhite Security, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00810 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petition, finding Walmart time-barred and no exceptional circumstances justifying joinder.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDecided for patent owner
“In particular, Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent on September 15, 2023. DD Req. 12. Petitioner waited until March 28, 2025 to file this Petition, more than eighteen months later. Thus, Petitioner is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from filing a petition. Petitioner seeks to join a recently instituted inter partes review filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Paper 3 (motion to join to IPR2024-01316). However, petitions filed by time-barred parties should proceed only in exceptional circumstances. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2025-00324, Paper 11 at 3 (Director June 25, 2025). Petitioner does not persuasively demonstrate exceptional circumstances here. For example, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner requested consolidation of its district court proceedings against Petitioner and Home Depot; that an initial district court proceeding was dismissed for standing, causing delays; and that the parallel district court proceeding is stayed. Paper 18, 3. However, Petitioner fails to persuasively demonstrate that these circumstances are exceptional and justify the joinder of a time-barred party. Accordingly, discretionary denial is appropriate under these circumstances.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“infringement of the challenged patent on September 15, 2023. DD Req. 12. Petitioner waited until March 28, 2025 to file this Petition, more than eighteen months later. Thus, Petitioner is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from filing a petition. Petitioner seeks to join a recently instituted inter partes review filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Paper 3 (motion to join to IPR2024-01316). However, petitions filed by time-barred parties should proceed only in exceptional circumstances. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2025-00324, Paper 11 at 3 (Director June 25, 2025). Petitioner does not persuasively demonstrate exceptional circumstances here. For example, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner requested consolidation of its district court proceedings against Petitioner and Home Depot; that an initial district court proceeding was dismissed for standing, causing delays; and that the parallel district court proceeding is stayed. Paper 18, 3. However, Petitioner fails to persuasively demonstrate that these circumstances are exceptional and justify the joinder of a time-barred party. Accordingly, discretionary denial is appropriate under these circumstances.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,594,823 - 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 - 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 - Commscope, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 19, 2022 · IPR2022-00352 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because time-barred 2Wire was an RPI and was in privity with CommScope under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“It is undisputed that 2Wire is time-barred under § 315(b) because 2Wire was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’835 patent 12 on February 7, 2014, more than one year before December 31, 2021, the filing date of the Petition. Pet. 65; Ex. 1034; Prelim. Resp. 12. CommScope identifies ARRIS Solutions as an RPI to this IPR proceeding and confirms that “2Wire, Inc. was merged into ARRIS Solutions, Inc.” Paper 7, 2. Indeed, 2Wire’s Amended Corporate Disclosure Statement filed in the Delaware case indicates that “the undersigned counsel of record for 2Wire, Inc. certifies that 2Wire, Inc. has been merged to form ARRIS Solutions, Inc.” and that “[t]his name change is the result of a merger . . . that became effective January 1, 2017.” Ex. 2009, 1. Moreover, CommScope acknowledges that 2Wire is “CommScope’s predecessor-in-interest in the District of Delaware,” and that “[o]n April 4, 2019, CommScope Holding Company, Inc.[, an RPI identified by Petitioner,] acquired the successor-ininterest of 2 Wire.” Ex. 2035, 5; Pet. 64. In sum, CommScope identifies ARRIS Solutions as an RPI in this IPR proceeding and 2Wire merged with ARRIS Solutions. As a result, we are persuaded that 2Wire is an RPI in this IPR proceeding. Accordingly, the Petition is time-barred under § 315(b). See Power Integrations, Inc., 926 F.3d at 1310, 1318 (holding that the IPR Petition was time-barred under § 315(b) because time-barred entity Fairchild, which had merged with the petitioner, was an RPI at the time of institution).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“on February 7, 2014, more than one year before December 31, 2021, the filing date of the Petition. Pet. 65; Ex. 1034; Prelim. Resp. 12. CommScope identifies ARRIS Solutions as an RPI to this IPR proceeding and confirms that “2Wire, Inc. was merged into ARRIS Solutions, Inc.” Paper 7, 2. Indeed, 2Wire’s Amended Corporate Disclosure Statement filed in the Delaware case indicates that “the undersigned counsel of record for 2Wire, Inc. certifies that 2Wire, Inc. has been merged to form ARRIS Solutions, Inc.” and that “[t]his name change is the result of a merger . . . that became effective January 1, 2017.” Ex. 2009, 1. Moreover, CommScope acknowledges that 2Wire is “CommScope’s predecessor-in-interest in the District of Delaware,” and that “[o]n April 4, 2019, CommScope Holding Company, Inc.[, an RPI identified by Petitioner,] acquired the successor-ininterest of 2 Wire.” Ex. 2035, 5; Pet. 64. In sum, CommScope identifies ARRIS Solutions as an RPI in this IPR proceeding and 2Wire merged with ARRIS Solutions. As a result, we are persuaded that 2Wire is an RPI in this IPR proceeding. Accordingly, the Petition is time-barred under § 315(b). See Power Integrations, Inc., 926 F.3d at 1310, 1318 (holding that the IPR Petition was time-barred under § 315(b) because time-barred entity Fairchild, which had merged with the petitioner, was an RPI at the time of institution).” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,462,835 - RPX Corporation v. Applications In Internet Time, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2020 · IPR2015-01752 · APJ Scott R Boalick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied RPX’s rehearing request, leaving in place the determination that Salesforce was an RPI and the petitions were time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner
“legally required for Salesforce to be a “beneficiary.” Req. Reh’g. 14. Further, Petitioner further asserts that we overlooked the authority cited by Petitioner that “‘behest’ means command, and that RPX cannot have acted as Salesforce’s representative unless RPX were appointed by Salesforce to so act.” Id. at 14–15. Petitioner asserts that the evidence, at most, demonstrates that RPX filed as a “mere volunteer to benefit Salesforce.” Id. at 15. We are not persuaded because Petitioner’s argument proposes that we apply a more narrow and rigid analysis of RPI than the one instructed by the Federal Circuit in these cases. As stated by the Federal Circuit, “[d]etermining whether a non-party is a ‘real party in interest’ demands a flexible approach that takes into account both equitable and practical considerations, with an eye toward determining whether the non-party is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with the petitioner.” AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351; see also Dec. 4–5. Applying this flexible approach to the evidence of record, we determined that Salesforce is an RPI in these proceedings.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDenied
“In the Final Decision on Remand, we determined that Salesforce was a real party in interest (an “RPI”) in these proceedings, and the Petitions, therefore, were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Dec. 35, 40. Based on that determination, we terminated the previously instituted inter partes reviews. Id. at 40. On October 9, 2020, RPX Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Request for Rehearing of the Board’s Final Decision on Remand. Paper 134 (“Req. Reh’g.”). Pursuant to our authorization, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 135, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 136, “Pet. Reply”). For the reasons discussed below, we deny Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for patent owner
“entitled to due process and the protections afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act. Pet. Reply 1 (citing SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We agree with Patent Owner, however, that all requirements of procedural due process have been met here. “The indispensable ingredients of due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard by a disinterested decision-maker.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,356,482 - RPX Corporation v. Applications In Internet Time, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2020 · IPR2015-01751 · APJ Scott R Boalick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied RPX’s rehearing request, leaving in place termination of the instituted IPRs because Salesforce was an RPI and the petitions were time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“In the Final Decision on Remand, we determined that Salesforce was a real party in interest (an “RPI”) in these proceedings, and the Petitions, therefore, were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Dec. 35, 40. Based on that determination, we terminated the previously instituted inter partes reviews. Id. at 40. On October 9, 2020, RPX Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Request for Rehearing of the Board’s Final Decision on Remand. Paper 134 (“Req. Reh’g.”). Pursuant to our authorization, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 135, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 136, “Pet. Reply”). For the reasons discussed below, we deny Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“legally required for Salesforce to be a “beneficiary.” Req. Reh’g. 14. Further, Petitioner further asserts that we overlooked the authority cited by Petitioner that “‘behest’ means command, and that RPX cannot have acted as Salesforce’s representative unless RPX were appointed by Salesforce to so act.” Id. at 14–15. Petitioner asserts that the evidence, at most, demonstrates that RPX filed as a “mere volunteer to benefit Salesforce.” Id. at 15. We are not persuaded because Petitioner’s argument proposes that we apply a more narrow and rigid analysis of RPI than the one instructed by the Federal Circuit in these cases. As stated by the Federal Circuit, “[d]etermining whether a non-party is a ‘real party in interest’ demands a flexible approach that takes into account both equitable and practical considerations, with an eye toward determining whether the non-party is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with the petitioner.” AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351; see also Dec. 4–5. Applying this flexible approach to the evidence of record, we determined that Salesforce is an RPI in these proceedings.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for patent owner
“entitled to due process and the protections afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act. Pet. Reply 1 (citing SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We agree with Patent Owner, however, that all requirements of procedural due process have been met here. “The indispensable ingredients of due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard by a disinterested decision-maker.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). In this case, Petitioner had ample opportunity to brief the issue of RPI. See Paper 28, Paper 29 (redacted version); Paper 38, Paper 37 (redacted version); Paper 98, Paper 95 (redacted version); Paper 100, Paper 104 (redacted version); Paper 101, Paper 102 (redacted version). Petitioner also had an opportunity to argue the issue of RPI in two oral hearings. See Paper 77, Paper 112, Paper 123 (redacted version). Moreover, in its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner had a chance to identify any matters it believes this panel misapprehended or overlooked in its Final Decision on Remand. Petitioner further had an opportunity to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response to its Request. Thus, both before and after this panel issued its Final Decision on Remand, Petitioner had notice and an opportunity to be heard on issues relevant to these cases on remand from the Federal Circuit. Finally, although a change in panel after remand from the Federal Circuit is not common, this panel, like the original panel, decided the merits of each case based on the entirety of the record. Stated another way, either panel would have decided the case after careful consideration of the same evidence. Nor can Petitioner complain that it lacked notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the panel change – Petitioner received notice of the panel change both before and in the panel decision, and Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and Board-authorized Reply gave it ample opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the change in panel has prejudiced Petitioner in any way or violated Petitioner’s due process rights.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,356,482 - RPX Corporation v. Applications In Internet Time, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2020 · IPR2015-01750 · APJ Scott R Boalick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied RPX’s rehearing request, leaving in place the remand decision terminating the reviews because Salesforce was an RPI and the petitions were time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“legally required for Salesforce to be a “beneficiary.” Req. Reh’g. 14. Further, Petitioner further asserts that we overlooked the authority cited by Petitioner that “‘behest’ means command, and that RPX cannot have acted as Salesforce’s representative unless RPX were appointed by Salesforce to so act.” Id. at 14–15. Petitioner asserts that the evidence, at most, demonstrates that RPX filed as a “mere volunteer to benefit Salesforce.” Id. at 15. We are not persuaded because Petitioner’s argument proposes that we apply a more narrow and rigid analysis of RPI than the one instructed by the Federal Circuit in these cases. As stated by the Federal Circuit, “[d]etermining whether a non-party is a ‘real party in interest’ demands a flexible approach that takes into account both equitable and practical considerations, with an eye toward determining whether the non-party is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with the petitioner.” AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351; see also Dec. 4–5. Applying this flexible approach to the evidence of record, we determined that Salesforce is an RPI in these proceedings.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“III. ANALYSIS In the Final Decision on Remand, we determined that Petitioner had not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Salesforce was not an RPI in these proceedings. Dec. 1–2, 6–7, 30–35, 40. As noted above, in light of this determination, we terminated the previously instituted inter partes reviews, and denied inter partes reviews under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Id. at 35, 40.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for patent owner
“entitled to due process and the protections afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act. Pet. Reply 1 (citing SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We agree with Patent Owner, however, that all requirements of procedural due process have been met here. “The indispensable ingredients of due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard by a disinterested decision-maker.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). In this case, Petitioner had ample opportunity to brief the issue of RPI. See Paper 28, Paper 29 (redacted version); Paper 38, Paper 37 (redacted version); Paper 98, Paper 95 (redacted version); Paper 100, Paper 104 (redacted version); Paper 101, Paper 102 (redacted version). Petitioner also had an opportunity to argue the issue of RPI in two oral hearings. See Paper 77, Paper 112, Paper 123 (redacted version). Moreover, in its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner had a chance to identify any matters it believes this panel misapprehended or overlooked in its Final Decision on Remand. Petitioner further had an opportunity to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response to its Request. Thus, both before and after this panel issued its Final Decision on Remand, Petitioner had notice and an opportunity to be heard on issues relevant to these cases on remand from the Federal Circuit. Finally, although a change in panel after remand from the Federal Circuit is not common, this panel, like the original panel, decided the merits of each case based on the entirety of the record. Stated another way, either panel would have decided the case after careful consideration of the same evidence. Nor can Petitioner complain that it lacked notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the panel change – Petitioner received notice of the panel change both before and in the panel decision, and Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and Board-authorized Reply gave it ample opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the change in panel has prejudiced Petitioner in any way or violated Petitioner’s due process rights.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,484,111 - Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Regents Of The University Of MinnesotaRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2020 · IPR2017-01186 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Ericsson’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the petition was time-barred under § 315(b) based on privity with district court defendants.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing of a decision whether to institute an inter partes review, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, 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 › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“In the Decision, we explained that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) provides that an inter partes review “may not be 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.” Dec. 4. We also explained that in determining whether a petitioner is in privity with another party, we consider the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). Dec. 4–5. Taylor provides six categories of exceptions to the rule against nonparty preclusion, namely 1) when “[a] person . . . agrees to be bound by the determination of issues in an action between others”; 2) “based on a” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“In the Decision, we explained that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) provides that an inter partes review “may not be 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.” Dec. 4. We also explained that in determining whether a petitioner is in privity with another party, we consider the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). Dec. 4–5. Taylor provides six categories of exceptions to the rule against nonparty preclusion, namely 1) when “[a] person . . . agrees to be bound by the determination of issues in an action between others”; 2) “based on a” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,774,309 - PTAB · Mar 16, 2020 · IPR2019-01111 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained denial of the petition as time-barred under § 315(b), because Amazon was a privy of several Petitioner Entities.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Here, Requesters simply disagree with the way in which we resolved the disputed privity issue in our Decision. Mere disagreement with our Decision is not proper basis for rehearing when we had considered and addressed Petitioner Entities’ arguments in the Decision itself. Requesters do not show that we misapprehended or overlooked an argument that they made in the Petition or Reply. Moreover, Requesters have not identified persuasively in the Request an erroneous interpretation of the law or factual findings not supported by substantial evidence such that the Decision should be modified.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we explained that the District Court’s ruling is on appeal, and Amazon has intervened in the appeal to continue its defense of Petitioner Entities’ interests in Amazon’s products. Id. at 29−30; Ex. 2017 (Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief); Ex. 2018 (Amazon’s Motion to Intervene). Thus, we concluded that the circumstances present here, which include the above-noted preexisting legal relationship between Amazon and some of the Petitioner Entities, have not changed and that Amazon and Petitioner Entities remain in privity. Dec. 23−24, 27−30, 35.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“concerns by evaluating whether one or more of the Taylor’s categories apply. Dec. 18−36. We separately and expressly analyzed three grounds— namely, Taylor’s second, third, and fifth categories identified above. Id. For example, the third Taylor category, addressing due process concerns, is whether a party not involved in a lawsuit nevertheless was represented adequately by someone with the same interests who was a party to the lawsuit. See Taylor, 553 U.S. at 894; WesternGeco, 889 F.3d at 1319. We determined that Amazon is a privy of several Petitioner Entities under this ground, as well as two additional grounds. Dec. 18−36.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,802,310 - PTAB · Mar 16, 2020 · IPR2019-01092 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of the petition as time-barred under § 315(b) because Petitioner entities remained in privity with Amazon.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be indicated 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. U.S., 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 burden of showing that the Decision should be modified is on Petitioner entities, the parties challenging the Institution Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2018). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes [we] misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“particular, we explained that the District Court’s ruling is on appeal, and Amazon has intervened in the appeal to continue its defense of Petitioner entities’ interests in Amazon’s products. Dec. 18, 20–21; Exs. 2017–2018. Thus, we concluded that the circumstances present here, which include the above-noted preexisting legal relationship between Amazon and at least some of the Petitioner entities, have not changed, and that Amazon and Petitioner entities remain in privity. Dec. 18, 21.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiDecided for patent owner
“the customer cases [, which include at least some Petitioner entities,3] are in privity with Amazon because they share the same interest in the unfettered use of Amazon’s web services, and Amazon adequately represented this interest in the [2011] Texas Action.” Ex. 2012, 14 (emphases added), quoted in Dec. 14. We do not understand Petitioner entities to be arguing that this determination was incorrect—Petitioner entities are the clear beneficiaries of the District Court’s ruling. In our Decision, we noted that the District Court’s articulation “is very similar, if not identical, to category three (adequate representation by the named party) in Taylor, where nonparty preclusion based on a privity relationship may be found.”” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for patent owner
“preclusion is, of course, subject to due process limitations,” and that “[a] person who was not a party to a suit generally has not had a ‘full and fair opportunity to litigate’ the claims and issues settled in that suit.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 533 U.S. 880 (2008), 891–92. Thus, “[a]s informed by Taylor and other cases, the standards for the privity inquiry must be grounded in due process.” WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2018). According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, “[b]ecause nonparty preclusion risks binding those who have not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, the Supreme Court has cautioned that there is a general rule against nonparty preclusion, subject to certain exceptions.” Id. (emphasis added); accord Taylor, 533 U.S. at 893 (“[T]he rule against nonparty preclusion is subject to exceptions.”). Taylor groups such exceptions into six categories, 533 U.S. at 893–95, three of which we analyzed in the Decision, at 13–27 (analyzing exceptions 2, 3, and” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,928,442
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.