- 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 - PTAB · Mar 16, 2020 · IPR2019-01093 · APJ Denise M Pothier · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained denial of institution because the petitioner entities remained in privity with time-barred Amazon under § 315(b).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” The abuse of discretion standard of review is the same heightened standard that federal appeals courts use to review district court factual findings. See PNY Techs., Inc. v. Phison Elecs. Corp., IPR2013-00472, Paper 16 at 2 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2014) (Final Written Decision) (citing Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“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.”)). A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2018). The party must identify specifically all matters that we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“entities’ interests in Amazon’s products. Id. at 19, 21–22; 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. 19, 22–23.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“Specifically, the District Court expressly found that “the defendants in 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. 23. Petitioner entities are the clear beneficiaries of this ruling by the District Court, and we do not understand Petitioner entities to be arguing that this determination by the District Court was incorrect. In our 3 As stated in the Decision (Dec. 13), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Click-to-Call read § 315(b) “to apply petition-by-petition, not petitioner-by-petitioner, with the collection of petitioners on a single petition treated as a unit indistinguishable from each member of that collection” “for the one-year time bar.” Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc in part). Decision, we noted that the District Court’s articulation “is very similar, if not identical, to [exception] three (adequate representation by the named party) in Taylor, where nonparty preclusion based on a privity relationship may be found.” Dec. 16. In the Decision, we further agreed with the District Court’s determination related to privity and reached the same conclusion upon considering the parties’ arguments and evidence. Id. at 23– 27. Thus, we considered whether denying the Petition was consistent with and grounded in due process, and concluded that it was, because, as analyzed in the Decision and discussed above, the record’s evidence met the third Taylor exception.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for patent owner
“The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he federal common law of 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, 533 U.S. at 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 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. Dec. 13–28 (analyzing the second exception (pre-existing substantive legal relationship between the 2 Patent Owner filed a complaint against Amazon on December 8, 2011, in the Eastern District of Texas (“the 2011 Amazon lawsuit”), alleging infringement of the ’544 patent based on Amazon’s Simple Storage Service (“S3”). Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 13–14 (citing PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Amazon Web Servs. LLC, No. 6:11-cv-00658 (E.D. Tex. dismissed on June 9, 2014)). parties), the third exception (adequate representation by the named party), and fifth exception (the nonparty acts as a proxy for the named party to re-litigate the same issues)). See also WesternGeco, 889 F.3d at 1319 (summarizing Taylor’s “non-exhaustive list of considerations where nonparty preclusion would be justified”). In the Decision, we addressed Petitioner entities’ due process concerns by evaluating whether one or more of Taylor’s exceptions apply. For example, one of the Taylor exceptions (the third exception) addressing due process concerns considers whether a nonparty to a lawsuit 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. As explained below, we considered and analyzed this exception in the Decision.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,945,544 - PTAB · Nov 22, 2019 · IPR2019-01111 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 20 and 69 because the petition was time-barred under § 315(b), finding Amazon was in privity with at least one petitioner.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied
“(b) PATENT OWNER’S ACTION.—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. The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c). “[T]he IPR petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that its petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b).” Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, the context of a real party in interest analysis); see also Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 4−5 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (precedential) (placing “the burden on IPR petitioners to demonstrate that its petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b) based on a complaint served on a privy more than a year before a petition is filed”). “The Board’s decision under § 315(b) is whether to institute or not. The condition precedent for this decision is whether a time-barred party (a party that has been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent more than one year before the IPR was filed) is the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner.” Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC, 926 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphases added). In the Federal Circuit’s view, the language of the statute makes privity and real parties in interest relationships that may arise “before institution relevant to the § 315(b) time-bar analysis.” Id. at 1315 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner
“More importantly, upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and evidence before us, we similarly determine that Amazon is a privy of several Petitioner Entities under the Taylor framework. See Taylor, 553 U.S. at 894−95. Here, at least the second, third, and fifth categories of Taylor support our determination that these Petitioner Entities are in privity with Amazon, a time-barred party. Second Taylor Category As to the second Taylor category, the record shows a pre-existing substantive legal relationship between Amazon and several Petitioner Entities—namely, PayPal, Strava, Valassis, Upwork Global, and RetailMeNot. The evidence of record shows that the relationship between Amazon and these Petitioner Entities went beyond typical transactions between supplier and buyer because there exists a substantive legal relationship between them that is defined by legal obligations and a sufficient degree of commonality of interest.” slip op. at 20
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,802,310 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2019 · IPR2019-01093 · APJ Denise M Pothier · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for challenged claims 46, 48, 52, and 55 because Amazon was a privy of at least one petitioner and its 2011 service made the petition time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDecided for patent owner
“B. Principles of Law Section 315(b) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides: (b) PATENT OWNER’S ACTION.—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. The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c). Petitioner entities “bear[] the ultimate burden of persuasion to show that [their] petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b) based on a complaint served on an alleged [privy of Petitioner entities] more than a year earlier.” Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “[S]ervice of a pleading asserting a claim alleging infringement triggers the one-year time period for a petitioner to file a petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).” GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., IPR2018-01754, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2019) (precedential); id. at 24. This one-year trigger under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) also applies to Petitioner entities’ privies or real parties in interest. See id. at 14 (“[T]he text of § 315(b) clearly and unmistakably considers only the date on which the petitioner, its privy, or a real party in interest was properly served with a complaint.”) (quoting Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc in part)).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner
“We recognize that the mere existence of an indemnity agreement might not be enough to find privity. See, e.g., WesternGeco, 889 F.3d at 1321. However, as is clear from the MDL record (summarized above), Amazon performed pursuant to the indemnity agreement and secured summary judgment related to infringement of the ’544 patent in favor of several of Petitioner entities. See, e.g., Ex. 2012, 3 (including the ’544 patent as part of the infringement action), 9 (listing “Category 3” infringement), 14 (“As to the effect of the indemnification agreement, it is undisputed that: . . . (2) sometime following PersonalWeb’s filing of complaints in the customer cases, Amazon agreed to indemnify its customers”), 16 (“Amazon assumed the indemnification of its customers prior to the consolidation of the MDL, and Amazon has not turned away any customer who has asked for indemnification”), 23 (finding that claim preclusion applied because, inter alia, the 2011 Amazon case involved the same parties or privies as the MDL proceeding), 26 (granting the DJ action “with respect to the Category 3 allegations involving use of . . . S3”). Thus, unlike in WesternGeco, in which the existence of an obligation to indemnify was ambiguous and undefined and, therefore, insufficient, 889 F.3d at 1321, Amazon actually assumed control of the lawsuits involving its customers, defended them, and secured relief on their behalf. We find this to be much stronger evidence of a pre-existing legal relationship than that shown in WesternGeco.” slip op. at 18
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,945,544 - Ford Motor Company v. Versata Development Group, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 6, 2017 · IPR2017-00151 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Ford’s rehearing requests, leaving in place the denials of institution because the dismissals did not lift the § 315(b) time bar.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“[a] request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence. It is not an abuse of discretion to have performed an analysis or reached a conclusion with which Petitioner disagrees, and mere disagreement with the Board’s analysis or conclusion is not a proper basis for rehearing. Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., Case IPR2015-01022, slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016) (Paper 9).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“to pursue courses of action available to them before the action had been brought.” Req. 7–8 (quoting Atlanta Gas, slip op. at 13). Unlike Atlanta Gas and the other cases cited by Petitioner, we are persuaded that, after the dismissal of the Versata action, the parties in the instant proceedings did not enjoy the restored ability to pursue courses of action available to them before the Versata action had been brought. The Ford action would remain the first action filed, so that a new action by Patent Owner filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas would remain subject to the Eleventh Circuit’s first-to-file rule. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 675 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1982) (“In the absence of compelling circumstances, the court initially seized of a controversy should be the one to decide the case.” (Emphasis added.)). Further, although the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas had asked the parties to provide any “good faith reasons” for maintaining the Versata action, Patent Owner responded that it did not oppose dismissal, and Petitioner chose not to respond. Dec. 7–8. Thus, on this record, we understand that either party could have argued to retain the Versata action, but that, after the dismissal, the parties no longer enjoyed the ability to bring this action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Req. 11. As an initial matter, Section 315(b) requires us to look at both the action, as well as the asserted patent (i.e., “a complaint alleging infringement of the patent”). Petitioner does not contend, for example, that challenged patents (e.g., the ’651 patent) were not asserted in “a complaint alleging infringement” in the Versata action. Regardless, we disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of the Board’s decisions. In discussing the significance of the Versata and Ford actions, our focus clearly was on the actions as well. Dec. 11–12. In particular, we noted that in resolving the forum dispute in favor of the Michigan court, the respective courts treated the cases as if they were a single proceeding at least in terms of ability to assert claims and recognition of timing. Consequently, we agree that the relevant factor in determining whether the earlier complaint in the Versata action is operative for purposes of § 315(b) is the continuous assertion of the patent against Ford, not whether the case was formally consolidated. Id. at 12; see also Ex. 1131 (instructing the parties to provide good faith reasons why the Versata action should not be dismissed, “so that the issues may [be] dealt with in the Michigan court”). Further, regarding Petitioner’s arguments concerning the relative numbers of patents raised in the Versata action as compared to the Ford action and the allegedly differing “Versata parties” in Texas and Michigan, Petitioner did not raise these arguments during the Preliminary Proceedings, and we cannot have overlooked or misapprehended arguments not raised.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,882,057 - Ford Motor Company v. Versata Development Group, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 6, 2017 · IPR2017-00150 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing
Denied Ford’s rehearing requests, leaving institution denied because the earlier infringement complaint remained operative under § 315(b).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“[a] request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence. It is not an abuse of discretion to have performed an analysis or reached a conclusion with which Petitioner disagrees, and mere disagreement with the Board’s analysis or conclusion is not a proper basis for rehearing.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“to pursue courses of action available to them before the action had been brought.” Req. 7–8 (quoting Atlanta Gas, slip op. at 13). Unlike Atlanta Gas and the other cases cited by Petitioner, we are persuaded that, after the dismissal of the Versata action, the parties in the instant proceedings did not enjoy the restored ability to pursue courses of action available to them before the Versata action had been brought. The Ford action would remain the first action filed, so that a new action by Patent Owner filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas would remain subject to the Eleventh Circuit’s first-to-file rule. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 675 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1982) (“In the absence of compelling circumstances, the court initially seized of a controversy should be the one to decide the case.” (Emphasis added.)). Further, although the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas had asked the parties to provide any “good faith reasons” for maintaining the Versata action, Patent Owner responded that it did not oppose dismissal, and Petitioner chose not to respond. Dec. 7–8. Thus, on this record, we understand that either party could have argued to retain the Versata action, but that, after the dismissal, the parties no longer enjoyed the ability to bring this action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.” slip op. at 9
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“in resolving the forum dispute in favor of the Michigan court, the respective courts treated the cases as if they were a single proceeding at least in terms of ability to assert claims and recognition of timing. Consequently, we agree that the relevant factor in determining whether the earlier complaint in the Versata action is operative for purposes of § 315(b) is the continuous assertion of the patent against Ford, not whether the case was formally consolidated. Id. at 12; see also Ex. 1131 (instructing the parties to provide good faith reasons why the Versata action should not be dismissed, “so that the issues may [be] dealt with in the Michigan court”). Further, regarding Petitioner’s arguments concerning the relative numbers of patents raised in the Versata action as compared to the Ford action and the allegedly differing “Versata parties” in Texas and Michigan, Petitioner did not raise these arguments during the Preliminary Proceedings, and we cannot have overlooked or misapprehended arguments not raised.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,882,057 - Ford Motor Company v. Versata Development Group, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 6, 2017 · IPR2017-00147 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Ford’s rehearing requests, leaving in place the denial of institution because § 315(b)’s time bar applied after the dismissal without prejudice.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“For these reasons, we were persuaded that, because the facts of the instant proceedings, namely, that the dismissal “was not pursuant to Rule 41(a), was not ‘voluntary,’ and, most importantly, did not leave the parties as though the action had never been brought,” are not sufficiently similar to the facts present in the precedential decisions, we are not bound to find that 5 As we noted in our decisions denying institution, in holding that the dismissal put the appellant in the position in which it would have been, had it never filed a notice of appeal, the Federal Circuit in Graves compared those circumstances with the voluntary dismissal in Bonneville, in which the “nullifying effect of a voluntary dismissal in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) was applied.” Dec. 6 (quoting Graves, 294 F.3d at 1356). the dismissal of the Versata action “without prejudice” necessarily lifted the Section 315(b) bar. 2. Creation of “Continuous Chain of Assertion” Exception” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“to pursue courses of action available to them before the action had been brought.” Req. 7–8 (quoting Atlanta Gas, slip op. at 13). Unlike Atlanta Gas and the other cases cited by Petitioner, we are persuaded that, after the dismissal of the Versata action, the parties in the instant proceedings did not enjoy the restored ability to pursue courses of action available to them before the Versata action had been brought. The Ford action would remain the first action filed, so that a new action by Patent Owner filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas would remain subject to the Eleventh Circuit’s first-to-file rule. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 675 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1982) (“In the absence of compelling circumstances, the court initially seized of a controversy should be the one to decide the case.” (Emphasis added.)). Further, although the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas had asked the parties to provide any “good faith reasons” for maintaining the Versata action, Patent Owner responded that it did not oppose dismissal, and Petitioner chose not to respond. Dec. 7–8. Thus, on this record, we understand that either party could have argued to retain the Versata action, but that, after the dismissal, the parties no longer enjoyed the ability to bring this action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.” slip op. at 9
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We understand that Petitioner would weigh the relevant facts differently than we do. Nevertheless, [a] request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence. It is not an abuse of discretion to have performed an analysis or reached a conclusion with which Petitioner disagrees, and mere disagreement with the Board’s analysis or conclusion is not a proper basis for rehearing. Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., Case IPR2015-01022, slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016) (Paper 9).” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,464,064 - Ford Motor Company v. Versata Development Group, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 6, 2017 · IPR2017-00146 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Ford’s rehearing requests, leaving in place the denial of institution because the § 315(b) time bar applied after the Versata action was dismissed without prejudice.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“[a] request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence. It is not an abuse of discretion to have performed an analysis or reached a conclusion with which Petitioner disagrees, and mere disagreement with the Board’s analysis or conclusion is not a proper basis for rehearing. Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., Case IPR2015-01022, slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016) (Paper 9).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“to pursue courses of action available to them before the action had been brought.” Req. 7–8 (quoting Atlanta Gas, slip op. at 13). Unlike Atlanta Gas and the other cases cited by Petitioner, we are persuaded that, after the dismissal of the Versata action, the parties in the instant proceedings did not enjoy the restored ability to pursue courses of action available to them before the Versata action had been brought. The Ford action would remain the first action filed, so that a new action by Patent Owner filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas would remain subject to the Eleventh Circuit’s first-to-file rule. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 675 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1982) (“In the absence of compelling circumstances, the court initially seized of a controversy should be the one to decide the case.” (Emphasis added.)). Further, although the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas had asked the parties to provide any “good faith reasons” for maintaining the Versata action, Patent Owner responded that it did not oppose dismissal, and Petitioner chose not to respond. Dec. 7–8. Thus, on this record, we understand that either party could have argued to retain the Versata action, but that, after the dismissal, the parties no longer enjoyed the ability to bring this action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 5,825,651 - Ford Motor Company v. Versata Development Group, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 6, 2017 · IPR2017-00144 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Ford’s rehearing requests and left in place the denial of institution because the § 315(b) time bar was not lifted by the dismissal without prejudice.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“B. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, with specificity, all matters that the moving party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“to pursue courses of action available to them before the action had been brought.” Req. 7–8 (quoting Atlanta Gas, slip op. at 13). Unlike Atlanta Gas and the other cases cited by Petitioner, we are persuaded that, after the dismissal of the Versata action, the parties in the instant proceedings did not enjoy the restored ability to pursue courses of action available to them before the Versata action had been brought. The Ford action would remain the first action filed, so that a new action by Patent Owner filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas would remain subject to the Eleventh Circuit’s first-to-file rule. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 675 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1982) (“In the absence of compelling circumstances, the court initially seized of a controversy should be the one to decide the case.” (Emphasis added.)). Further, although the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas had asked the parties to provide any “good faith reasons” for maintaining the Versata action, Patent Owner responded that it did not oppose dismissal, and Petitioner chose not to respond. Dec. 7–8. Thus, on this record, we understand that either party could have argued to retain the Versata action, but that, after the dismissal, the parties no longer enjoyed the ability to bring this action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,200,582
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.