- Par Health, Inc. v. Inforlife, S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 20, 2026 · PGR2026-00036 · APJ John A Squires · PGR · Institution
The Director denied institution because the petition did not show that Biomed was publicly accessible as prior art, so it failed to show any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“sufficiently that Biomed qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The Board’s precedential decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), addresses prior-art qualification in the related context of instituting an inter partes review. Hulu states that “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Id. at 13; see also Jazz Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC. 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he IPR petitioner . . . had the burden to prove that a particular reference is a printed publication.”). The same guidance applies to post-grant reviews, albeit with the “more likely than not” standard applicable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 n.5. Hulu also states that “there is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under [37] § 42.108(c).” Hulu, Paper 29 at 16.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently that Biomed qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The Board’s precedential decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), addresses prior-art qualification in the related context of instituting an inter partes review. Hulu states that “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Id. at 13; see also Jazz Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC. 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he IPR petitioner . . . had the burden to prove that a particular reference is a printed publication.”). The same guidance applies to post-grant reviews, albeit with the “more likely than not” standard applicable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 n.5. Hulu also states that “there is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under [37] § 42.108(c).” Hulu, Paper 29 at 16. In this case, Petitioner merely cites a “date of revision” appearing within Biomed. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005, 11). Yet, a revision date alone does not establish that Biomed was disseminated or made publicly available. And, although indicia appearing within a reference can sometimes support the printed publication status of the reference, I find the record to be devoid of any such indicia, or other evidence, supporting that Biomed was publicly disseminated or accessible by the June 15, 2021 “date of revision.” See Hulu, Paper 29 at 16–18. Thus, Petitioner fails to show that it is more likely” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“sufficiently that Biomed qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The Board’s precedential decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), addresses prior-art qualification in the related context of instituting an inter partes review. Hulu states that “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Id. at 13; see also Jazz Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC. 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he IPR petitioner . . . had the burden to prove that a particular reference is a printed publication.”). The same guidance applies to post-grant reviews, albeit with the “more likely than not” standard applicable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 n.5. Hulu also states that “there is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under [37] § 42.108(c).” Hulu, Paper 29 at 16. In this case, Petitioner merely cites a “date of revision” appearing within Biomed. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005, 11). Yet, a revision date alone does not establish that Biomed was disseminated or made publicly available. And, although indicia appearing within a reference can sometimes support the printed publication status of the reference, I find the record to be devoid of any such indicia, or other evidence, supporting that Biomed was publicly disseminated or accessible by the June 15, 2021 “date of revision.” See Hulu, Paper 29 at 16–18. Thus, Petitioner fails to show that it is more likely” slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 12,370,153 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 2, 2026 · IPR2026-00112 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Institution was denied for claims 1–12 because the petition did not show that the cited search results taught the claimed “data feed.”
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Although Petitioner asserts that the ’463 patent “does not limit the form of a data feed,” Petitioner does not explain what the ordinary and customary meaning of “data feed” was at the time of the claimed invention or otherwise propose an express construction of “data feed.” Pet. 6–7, 23. Nor does Petitioner point to any prosecution history that bears on the meaning of “data feed.” Id.; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. Accordingly, Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence showing that Kraft’s or Wong’s disclosure of search results in response to a user-entered search query teaches a “data feed,” as recited in each challenged claim of the ’463 patent. As such, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing at least one claim is unpatentable, as 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) requires.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“I agree with Patent Owner. Neither Kraft nor Wong uses the term “data feed” or characterizes its listing of Web pages (Kraft) or nodes (Wong) provided in response to a user-provided query as a “data feed.” See Ex. 1005, 5:8–12, 6:52–59, 16:52–59, 18:31–54, 18:61–19:23; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 22, 28, 35. Petitioner points to a disclosure in the ’463 patent of a user requesting a personal information aggregator (PIA) to “receive a data feed.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:52–64). But Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how this disclosure provides support for broadly construing “browsing a data feed” to encompass a user entering criteria for a search (and not specifically requesting a “data feed”) and receiving a listing of Web pages or nodes in response. See Pet. 23, 58–59; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 201–202; Ex. 1005, 6:57–59 (describing users searching a data store for models that match “user-specified criteria”), 18:41–54 (describing a user submitting a query); Ex. 1007 ¶ 28 (describing “searching and selecting from keyword identifiers or other search terms”). Petitioner’s reliance on a separate disclosure in the ’463 patent of the PIA “searching . . . the network for information about the situation or event” also is not persuasive, because the ’463 patent does not describe that embodiment as involving a data feed or browsing a data feed. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1001, 20:46–51) (emphasis omitted); Ex. 1001, 20:46–51.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 12,256,463 - Cybersecure Ips, LLC v. Network Integrity Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 26, 2026 · IPR2025-01441 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Institution
The Director denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–5 and 8–16, despite finding two claims met the institution threshold, because a trial would not efficiently use Board resources.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner’s third ground challenging claims 8 and 12 meets the reasonable likelihood threshold for institution, in part because it relies on a reference that expressly discloses detecting movement. See id. at 73–74. Petitioner’s remaining grounds, however, fail to meet the reasonable likelihood standard. Petitioner makes inherency arguments relying on expert testimony, but does not explain sufficiently how the prior art inherently discloses the detecting movement limitation. See id. at 7, 33, 59–60, 92–93; Ex. 1003 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“At most, the challenges to only two of the fourteen challenged claims meet the reasonable likelihood standard for institution. Under these circumstances, institution of trial would not be an efficient use of Board resources. Factors such as the efficient administration of the Office, coupled with the ability of the Office to timely complete its work, by their nature, center broadly on the Office, the patent system, and the public interest and, thus, inform my exercise of discretion. See, e.g., Chevron Oronite Co v. Infineum USA, IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative) (determining that instituting a trial was “not an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources” where only two of twenty challenged claims met the reasonable likelihood standard).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,706,641 - Ford Motor Company v. Autoconnect Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2025-01524 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Director Review was granted, institution was vacated, and IPR was denied because Petitioner advanced broader indefiniteness arguments in related litigation.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“As I recently explained, it is appropriate to deny institution when a Petitioner’s conduct demonstrates that the dispute “is less about a litigation alternative and more about inconsistent positions to gain an upper hand in the overall litigation.” Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., IPR2025- 01374, Paper 20 (Director May 12, 2026). Here, as in Terumo, Petitioner advanced indefiniteness contentions in the co-pending district court litigation at its first opportunity to do so after institution was granted. See Paper 15, 1–2 (listing seven allegedly indefinite terms and phrases impacting all challenged claims). Although Petitioner contends that its unpatentability arguments for the “and/or” and “one or more” claim limitations fit within the Tesla framework, i.e., that the prior art discloses the claimed features regardless of how those limitations are construed, Petitioner’s indefiniteness contentions are broader than those two limitations. See, e.g., Paper 15, 1–2; IPR2025-01383, Paper 9 at 8–10. Thus, it is appropriate to deny institution of these IPRs for the same reasons as articulated in Terumo.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I recently explained, it is appropriate to deny institution when a Petitioner’s conduct demonstrates that the dispute “is less about a litigation alternative and more about inconsistent positions to gain an upper hand in the overall litigation.” Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., IPR2025- 01374, Paper 20 (Director May 12, 2026). Here, as in Terumo, Petitioner advanced indefiniteness contentions in the co-pending district court litigation at its first opportunity to do so after institution was granted. See Paper 15, 1–2 (listing seven allegedly indefinite terms and phrases impacting all challenged claims). Although Petitioner contends that its unpatentability arguments for the “and/or” and “one or more” claim limitations fit within the Tesla framework, i.e., that the prior art discloses the claimed features regardless of how those limitations are construed, Petitioner’s indefiniteness contentions are broader than those two limitations. See, e.g., Paper 15, 1–2; IPR2025-01383, Paper 9 at 8–10. Thus, it is appropriate to deny institution of these IPRs for the same reasons as articulated in Terumo. In its briefing, Petitioner states that it will stipulate to withdraw all indefiniteness arguments against the challenged patents from the related litigation if the Board agrees to maintain and not vacate institution of these IPRs. Paper 16, 2. This stipulation, which Petitioner offered only after Petitioner’s actions ran afoul of Revvo and Tesla and only after Patent Owner brought those actions to the Office’s attention, is insufficient.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Accordingly, the appropriate course of action is to grant Director Review, vacate the Notices granting institution, and deny institution.3 It is: ORDERED that Director Review is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the Notices granting institution of inter partes review (Paper 11; IPR2025-01383, Paper 12; IPR2025-01524, Paper 10) are vacated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trials are instituted.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,123,186 - Ford Motor Company v. Autoconnect Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2025-01383 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Director review was granted, the institution notices were vacated, and institution was denied because Petitioner advanced inconsistent claim positions in parallel litigation.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I recently explained, it is appropriate to deny institution when a Petitioner’s conduct demonstrates that the dispute “is less about a litigation alternative and more about inconsistent positions to gain an upper hand in the overall litigation.” Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., IPR2025- 01374, Paper 20 (Director May 12, 2026). Here, as in Terumo, Petitioner advanced indefiniteness contentions in the co-pending district court litigation at its first opportunity to do so after institution was granted. See Paper 15, 1–2 (listing seven allegedly indefinite terms and phrases impacting all challenged claims). Although Petitioner contends that its unpatentability arguments for the “and/or” and “one or more” claim limitations fit within the Tesla framework, i.e., that the prior art discloses the claimed features regardless of how those limitations are construed, Petitioner’s indefiniteness contentions are broader than those two limitations. See, e.g., Paper 15, 1–2; IPR2025-01383, Paper 9 at 8–10. Thus, it is appropriate to deny institution of these IPRs for the same reasons as articulated in Terumo. In its briefing, Petitioner states that it will stipulate to withdraw all indefiniteness arguments against the challenged patents from the related litigation if the Board agrees to maintain and not vacate institution of these IPRs. Paper 16, 2. This stipulation, which Petitioner offered only after Petitioner’s actions ran afoul of Revvo and Tesla and only after Patent Owner brought those actions to the Office’s attention, is insufficient.” slip op. at 3
- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“Accordingly, the appropriate course of action is to grant Director Review, vacate the Notices granting institution, and deny institution.3 It is: ORDERED that Director Review is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the Notices granting institution of inter partes review (Paper 11; IPR2025-01383, Paper 12; IPR2025-01524, Paper 10) are vacated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trials are instituted.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,290,153 - Ford Motor Company v. Autoconnect Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2025-01342 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Director Review was granted, the institution notices were vacated, and institution was denied because Ford advanced broader indefiniteness positions in related litigation.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I recently explained, it is appropriate to deny institution when a Petitioner’s conduct demonstrates that the dispute “is less about a litigation alternative and more about inconsistent positions to gain an upper hand in the overall litigation.” Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., IPR2025- 01374, Paper 20 (Director May 12, 2026). Here, as in Terumo, Petitioner advanced indefiniteness contentions in the co-pending district court litigation at its first opportunity to do so after institution was granted. See Paper 15, 1–2 (listing seven allegedly indefinite terms and phrases impacting all challenged claims). Although Petitioner contends that its unpatentability arguments for the “and/or” and “one or more” claim limitations fit within the Tesla framework, i.e., that the prior art discloses the claimed features regardless of how those limitations are construed, Petitioner’s indefiniteness contentions are broader than those two limitations. See, e.g., Paper 15, 1–2; IPR2025-01383, Paper 9 at 8–10. Thus, it is appropriate to deny institution of these IPRs for the same reasons as articulated in Terumo. In its briefing, Petitioner states that it will stipulate to withdraw all indefiniteness arguments against the challenged patents from the related litigation if the Board agrees to maintain and not vacate institution of these IPRs. Paper 16, 2. This stipulation, which Petitioner offered only after Petitioner’s actions ran afoul of Revvo and Tesla and only after Patent Owner brought those actions to the Office’s attention, is insufficient.” slip op. at 3
- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“Accordingly, the appropriate course of action is to grant Director Review, vacate the Notices granting institution, and deny institution.3 It is: ORDERED that Director Review is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the Notices granting institution of inter partes review (Paper 11; IPR2025-01383, Paper 12; IPR2025-01524, Paper 10) are vacated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trials are instituted.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,020,697 - Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2025-01391 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Director Review was granted, the institution notice vacated, and institution denied because Petitioner took inconsistent claim-construction positions in the IPR and district court.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“For the reasons below, Patent Owner’s requests for Director Review are granted.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s conduct, which ensued following institution, demonstrates that this dispute is less about a litigation alternative, as Congress intended, and more about inconsistent positions to gain an upper hand in the overall litigation. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, at 48 (2011) (explaining that IPRs were intended to provide “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation”). Such conduct has negative consequences: It multiplies litigation expense, reduces patent value, discourages innovation, diminishes the integrity of the patent system, and depletes the Office’s resources. Discretion is afforded to the USPTO Director to ensure fairness, efficiency, and predictability in patent disputes in a focused inter partes context—as Congress envisioned—as distinct from the broad adversarial context in district court litigation. The Office’s review under Article I is ultimately regulatory; proceedings under Article III are adjudicatory. I would not have instituted these IPRs in the first instance had Petitioner engaged in this strategic litigation-style behavior before institution. Accordingly, the appropriate course of action is to grant Director Review, vacate the Notice granting institution of these IPRs, and deny institution.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentOther
“Petitioner’s assertion that the term “controller” is not in controversy in these IPRs and so it was not required to construe the term in the Petitions is an inadequate justification for the different positions. As I have stated repeatedly, a petitioner should present a single construction and apply that construction consistently before the Board and the district court. See, e.g., Infineon Techs. Am. Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026) (“[A] petitioner should pick one [construction], and one consistent with its asserted District Court position.”). Failure to do so detracts from the Office’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.” Revvo, Paper 20 at 4–5. I also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that these IPRs do not implicate Rule 42.104(b)(3). Rule 42.104(b)(3) requires a petition to “[p]rovide a statement of the precise relief requested for each claim challenged,” and to identify how each challenged claim is to be construed. The rule continues to state that “[w]here the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner’s position in the district court that the term “controller” is a means-plus-function limitation undercuts its position that Rule 42.104(b)(3) does not apply here. Further, Petitioner’s citation to Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) as support for its position is inapposite, as the holding in that case addresses when the Board is required to construe a claim term, not when a party is required to follow Board rules. DR Response 7–8.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,758,652 - Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2025-01374 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Director Review was granted, the institution notice was vacated, and institution was denied because Petitioner took inconsistent claim-construction positions.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s conduct, which ensued following institution, demonstrates that this dispute is less about a litigation alternative, as Congress intended, and more about inconsistent positions to gain an upper hand in the overall litigation. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, at 48 (2011) (explaining that IPRs were intended to provide “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation”). Such conduct has negative consequences: It multiplies litigation expense, reduces patent value, discourages innovation, diminishes the integrity of the patent system, and depletes the Office’s resources. Discretion is afforded to the USPTO Director to ensure fairness, efficiency, and predictability in patent disputes in a focused inter partes context—as Congress envisioned—as distinct from the broad adversarial context in district court litigation. The Office’s review under Article I is ultimately regulatory; proceedings under Article III are adjudicatory. I would not have instituted these IPRs in the first instance had Petitioner engaged in this strategic litigation-style behavior before institution. Accordingly, the appropriate course of action is to grant Director Review, vacate the Notice granting institution of these IPRs, and deny institution.” slip op. at 4
- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“Petitioner knew that, consistent with Board precedent, it cannot take different positions on claim construction in the district court and at the Board without an adequate explanation. Nonetheless, Petitioner did not heed that caution. Instead, at its first opportunity after institution was granted in these IPRs, Petitioner—whom I note is represented by the same counsel here and in district court—advanced indefiniteness contentions in the district court litigation that are different from Petitioner’s proposed “plain and ordinary meaning” constructions in these IPRs. See, e.g., DR Request 1; Ex. 2022, 21–42; Paper 2, 2 (counsel information); IPR2025- 01391, Paper 19, 1. Specifically, Petitioner argued in its district court contentions that “‘at least claims 11–20 of the ’124 patent are indefinite’ because the ‘controller [is/further] configured to’ terms are governed by means-plus-function interpretation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and fail to recite sufficient structure.” DR Request 1 (quoting Pet. 20 and Ex. 2022 (Joint Disputed Claim Chart), 21–42); see also IPR2025-01391, Paper 19, 1 (“Petitioner now argues that ‘at least claims 11–19 of the ’652 patent are indefinite.’”).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,738,124 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. D/B/A MeshdynamicsInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2026 · IPR2025-01303 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Director Review was granted, the institution determination was vacated, and institution was denied because the Patent Owner had disclaimed the entire patent before institution.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that Director Review is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the determination in the Notice granting institution of inter partes review (Paper 11) is vacated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
- Adverse judgmentOther
“Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of the entire term of the challenged patent before the Notice was entered. See Ex. 2011. Although 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) permits the Office to enter an adverse judgment when a patent owner cancels all claims at issue, denying institution under these circumstances is a more efficient use of the Office’s resources. Denying institution also encourages similarly situated patent owners to file a disclaimer prior to institution. As such, the appropriate course of action is to vacate the determination in the Notice and deny institution.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,368,537 - Apple Inc. v. Ginko LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 2, 2026 · IPR2025-01388 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution because the petition did not sufficiently show that the asserted prior art disclosed the challenged claims’ requirement that a contact request include a permission setting.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. Petitioner fails to show that Robertson discloses that the request to become a contact with a potential contact includes a first permission level for the potential contact. In other words, Petitioner does not establish that any of the cited passages in Robertson disclose that the request includes a first permission setting. See Pet. 15–17 (citing Robertson, 7:42–45, 7:55–58, 8:10–17, 8:23–24, Fig. 9). In particular, each passage is silent as to when the permission levels are set. At most, Robertson discloses specifying permissions after contact has been established. See Robertson, 7:50–53. But Petitioner fails to account for the claim requirement that the first permission level is part of the request to establish contact. “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). “The IPR petition, thus, must provide an understandable explanation of the element-by-element specifics of the patentability challenges, including the identification of particular portions of prior art on which the petitioner is relying.” Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2023).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. Petitioner fails to show that Robertson discloses that the request to become a contact with a potential contact includes a first permission level for the potential contact. In other words, Petitioner does not establish that any of the cited passages in Robertson disclose that the request includes a first permission setting. See Pet. 15–17 (citing Robertson, 7:42–45, 7:55–58, 8:10–17, 8:23–24, Fig. 9). In particular, each passage is silent as to when the permission levels are set. At most, Robertson discloses specifying permissions after contact has been established. See Robertson, 7:50–53. But Petitioner fails to account for the claim requirement that the first permission level is part of the request to establish contact. “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). “The IPR petition, thus, must provide an understandable explanation of the element-by-element specifics of the patentability challenges, including the identification of particular portions of prior art on which the petitioner is relying.” Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2023).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. Petitioner fails to show that Robertson discloses that the request to become a contact with a potential contact includes a first permission level for the potential contact. In other words, Petitioner does not establish that any of the cited passages in Robertson disclose that the request includes a first permission setting. See Pet. 15–17 (citing Robertson, 7:42–45, 7:55–58, 8:10–17, 8:23–24, Fig. 9). In particular, each passage is silent as to when the permission levels are set. At most, Robertson discloses specifying permissions after contact has been established. See Robertson, 7:50–53. But Petitioner fails to account for the claim requirement that the first permission level is part of the request to establish contact. “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). “The IPR petition, thus, must provide an understandable explanation of the element-by-element specifics of the patentability challenges, including the identification of particular portions of prior art on which the petitioner is relying.” Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2023).” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,025,573
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.