- Ebay Inc. / Alibaba.Com Hong Kong Ltd. et al. v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Oct 12, 2018 · IPR2016-01828 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted in part: review was instituted on all challenged claims and grounds, but claims 16 and 28 were not shown unpatentable because their scope could not be determined without speculation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“For the reasons explained below, we grant Patent Owner’s request for rehearing to the extent we (1) modify our Institution Decision to institute on all of the challenged claims, including claims 16 and 28, and all of the grounds presented in the Petition, including Ground 2; and (2) modify our Final Written Decision to include a determination with respect to claims 16 and 28. We deny, however, Patent Owner’s request for rehearing to the extent we decline to read claims 16 and 28 on the prior art.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In SAS, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc., 1348 at 1359–60. In our Institution Decision, we determined that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that at least one of the challenged claims of the U.S. Patent No. 8,650,591 B2 is unpatentable. Inst. Dec. 23. Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in SAS, we now modify our Institution Decision to institute on all of the challenged claims, including claims 16 and 28, and on all of the grounds presented in the Petition, including Ground 2, and we determine, in this Decision on Patent Owner’s Motion for Rehearing, whether claims 16 and 28 have been shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“If our unpatentability analysis requires “considerable speculation as to the meaning and assumptions as to the scope” of the claims, In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962), the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art cannot be ascertained. See id.; see also BlackBerry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, Case IPR2013-00036, slip op. at 19–20 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2014) (Paper 65) (citing Steele, 305 F.2d at 862–63 for the proposition that “the prior art grounds of unpatentability must fall, pro forma, because they are based on speculative assumption[s] as to the meaning of the claims” and reasoning that “an obviousness determination based on less than all of the claimed elements is speculative as to the meaning or scope of the claims”). In other words, “[w]ithout ascertaining the proper claim scope, we cannot conduct a necessary factual inquiry for determining obviousness—ascertaining differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art.” Id. at 20 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).” slip op. at 6
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“least one partition of said at least one secondary storage device through said secondary storage partitions window,” “means for manipulating said at least one cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window,” and “means for modifying said at least one cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window.” Ex. 101, 9:66–10:25. In related litigation, the district court found in its claim construction opinion that the ’400 patent does not provide structure corresponding clearly to the functions of these limitations. Ex. 1010, 49–61. We have reviewed and considered the district court’s analysis and findings and we concur with the district court’s conclusion. We are unable to discern structure in the ’400 patent that corresponds clearly to the functions recited in the “means for” limitations of claim 16. Claim 28 recites similarly “program code for configuring said at least one partition of said at least one secondary storage device through a secondary storage partitions window,” “program code for manipulating said virtual cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window,” and “program code for means for modifying said at least one cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window.” Ex. 1001, 10:65–11:29. The district court also found that the ’400 patent did not provide structure corresponding clearly to the function of these limitations. Ex. 1010, 49–61. We have reviewed and considered the district court’s analysis and findings and we concur with the district court’s conclusion. We are unable to discern structure in the ’400 patent that corresponds clearly to the functions recited in the “program code for” limitations of claim 28.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,690,400 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / DISH Network, LLC et al. v. TQ Delta, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 1, 2018 · IPR2016-01020 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter that would change its prior decision applying the prior art to the challenged claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“carrier phases.” Independent claims 13 and 20 similarly recite “scramble[s] a plurality of phases.” We adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction in part by construing “scrambling . . . a plurality of carrier phases” to mean “adjusting the phases of a plurality of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol.” Dec. 6–9. We did not add to that construction “by pseudo-randomly varying amounts” because Patent Owner did not show why that additional language should be included for the broadest reasonable construction of the term “scrambling . . . a plurality of carrier phases.” Id. Patent Owner argues that our construction is overly broad because it encompasses adjusting the phases of every carrier in the single multicarrier symbol by the same amount. Req. Reh’g. 1–2. Such an adjustment, according to Patent Owner, would not reduce peak-to-average power ratio (“PAR”), which the parties and the panel all agree scrambling must do. Id. at 3–5. “The FWD misapprehends or overlooks that, under any proper construction, there must at a minimum be varying amounts by which the phases are adjusted within a single multicarrier symbol (i.e., from carrier-tocarrier) such that PAR is reduced.” Id. at 2.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“technique “will increase PAR” (Dec. 27–28), but does not characterize Shively as having a “high” or “increased” PAR.4 Our Decision relies upon page 28 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 12), which concedes that “Shively’s ‘spreading’ technique will contribute a small uptick in clipping probability.” Patent Owner does not dispute, in its Request for Rehearing, Shively’s technique increases PAR. With respect to Patent Owner’s argument that “there is no PAR problem presented by Shively” (Req. Reh’g. 13) and “the only PAR problem in this case relates to clipping” (id. at 14), we considered that argument and found it unpersuasive. Dec. 27–28. As we noted, “Petitioner’s reason to combine does not depend on the PAR increase exceeding some specific numeric threshold,” “there also is no dispute that equipment designed to handle a higher PAR can be larger, more expensive, and more power hungry than equipment designed to handle a lower PAR,” and, therefore, “a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have been motivated to reduce PAR regardless of whether Shively’s technique resulted in clipping.” Id. In other words, as we explained in our Decision, Shively’s PAR need not result in clipping in order to motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art because we are persuaded such a person would have been motivated sufficiently to reduce PAR by the benefit of being able to use smaller, less expensive, less power hungry components.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,014,243 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
Granted rehearing and held claims 2, 4, and 6 unpatentable as obvious over Rabinovich because the wireless-network limitation encompasses a connection through a wireless hub.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub. Because we determine that the “wireless network” recited in dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 need not be an ad hoc network, Patent Owner’s argument that Rabinovich’s replication method would have been unsuitable for use over an ad hoc network does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s showing. Having considered the arguments and evidence of both parties, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rabinovich.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeNot reached
“We decline to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Even without excluding the identified evidence, we have concluded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 24, 2016 · CBM2015-00033 · APJ Matthew R Clements · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request, leaving claims 25, 26, 30, and 32 unpatentable under § 101 because the request did not show the Board misapprehended or overlooked a matter.
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.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Other
“Smartflash’s arguments are either new or were addressed in our Final Decision. For example, Smartflash’s argument that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea (Req. Reh’g 11–13) is new, and therefore, improper in a request for rehearing, because Smartflash did not argue the first step of the analysis articulated in Mayo and Alice in its Patent Owner Response. See PO Resp. 15–29 (Patent Owner Response argues that claims are statutory under only the second step of Mayo and Alice); see also Paper 38 (transcript of oral hearing), 6:13–16 (Petitioner stating that “Patent Owner has presented no argument whatsoever to contest that its claims are directed to abstract ideas under the first prong of Mayo and Alice.”), id. at 6:17–18 (Petitioner also stating “It [] also never disputed the articulation of those abstract ideas”).” slip op. at 4
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptNot reached
§ 101 eligibilitycites AlicePatents in suitUS 8,336,772 - Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 24, 2016 · CBM2015-00032 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request, leaving its determination that claims 14, 19, and 22 are patent ineligible under § 101 unchanged.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“burden of showing unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: 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.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached
“determination that claims 14, 19, and 22 (“the challenged claims”) are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Req. Reh’g 5. In its Request, Smartflash presents arguments directed to alleged similarities between the challenged claims and those at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Req. Reh’g 5–10) and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-2044 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016), and alleged differences between the challenged claims and those at issue in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (id. at 10–15).” slip op. at 4
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptDecided for patent owner
“As we stated in our Final Written Decision and Petitioner argues, the ’772 patent specification treats as well-known and conventional all potentially technical elements of claims 14, 19, and 22, the claimed code performs generic computer functions, and the claims recite several generic and conventional data types. Final Dec. 15–17; Notice Resp. 1–2. These limitations of claims 14, 19, and 22 “do not yield a result that overrides the routine and conventional manner in which this technology operates.” Final Dec. 20. Rather, each of the challenged claims is “an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way,” making it patent ineligible. See BASCOM, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6, 3 We note that U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720 B2 is not at issue in this proceeding. *7. Also, “[t]he concept of storing two different types of information4 in the same place or on the same device is an age old practice.” Final Dec. 22. For example, “the prior art discloses products, such as electronic data, that could store both the content and conditions for providing access to the content, such as ‘a time bomb or other disabling device which will disable the product at the end of the rental period.’” Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1315, Abstract, 10:24–30).” slip op. at 7
§ 101 eligibilitycites AlicePatents in suitUS 8,336,772 - Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 24, 2016 · CBM2015-00031 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request and left its decision that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are unpatentable under § 101 unchanged.
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.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“As we stated in our Final Written Decision and Petitioners argue, the ’772 patent specification treats as well-known and conventional all potentially technical elements of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 the claimed code performs generic computer functions, and the claims recite several generic and conventional data types. Final Dec. 14–17; Notice Resp. 1–2. These limitations of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 “do not yield a result that overrides the routine and conventional manner in which this technology operates.” Final Dec. 20. Rather, each of the challenged claims is “an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way,” making it patent ineligible. See BASCOM, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6, 3 We note that U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720 B2 is not at issue in this proceeding. *7. Also, “[t]he concept of storing two different types of information4 in the same place or on the same device is an age old practice.” Final Dec. 22. For example, “the prior art discloses products, such as electronic data, that could store both the content and conditions for providing access to the content, such as ‘a time bomb or other disabling device which will disable the product at the end of the rental period.’” Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1215, Abstract, 10:24–30).” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“Rather than providing a proper request for rehearing, addressing particular matters that we previously misapprehended or overlooked, Smartflash’s Request provides new briefing by expounding on argument already made. Smartflash cannot simply allege that an “issue” (e.g., whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea) was previously addressed, generally, and proceed to present new argument on that issue in a request for rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71. Smartflash’s arguments are either new or were addressed in our Final Decision. For example, Smartflash’s argument that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea (Req. Reh’g 10–12) is new, and therefore, improper in a request for rehearing, because Smartflash did not argue the first step of the analysis articulated in Mayo and Alice in its Patent Owner Response. See PO Resp. 16–25 (Patent Owner Response argues that claims are statutory under only the second step of Mayo and Alice); see also Paper 42 (transcript of oral hearing), 6:13–16 (Petitioner stating that “Patent Owner has presented no argument whatsoever to contest that its claims are directed to abstract ideas under the first prong of Mayo and Alice.”), id. at 6:17–18 (Petitioner also stating “It [] also never disputed the articulation of those abstract ideas”).” slip op. at 5
§ 101 eligibilitycites AlicePatents in suitUS 8,336,772 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 10, 2016 · CBM2014-00194 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its determination that claim 32 is unpatentable under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“showing unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: 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.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached
“Patent Owner’s arguments are either new or were addressed in our Final Decision. For example, Patent Owner’s argument that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea (Req. Reh’g 10–12) is new, and therefore, improper in a request for rehearing, because Patent Owner did not argue the first step of the analysis articulated in Mayo and Alice in its Patent Owner Response (see PO Resp. passim (arguing only the second step of the Mayo and Alice test)). To the extent portions of the Request are supported by Patent Owner’s argument in the general citations to the record, we considered those arguments in our Final Decision, as even Patent Owner acknowledges. See, e.g., Req. Reh’g 7 (citing Final Dec. 15) (“The Board rejected Patent Owner’s reliance on DDR Holdings (at 15), holding that Claim 7 was not ‘rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.’”). For example, Patent Owner’s arguments about inventive concept (Req. Reh’g 5– 7, 12–15) were addressed at pages 10–13 and 18–20 of our Final Decision, Patent Owner’s arguments about preemption (Req. Reh’g. 6–7) were addressed at pages 20–22 of our Final Decision, and Patent Owner’s arguments about DDR Holdings (Req. Reh’g. 7–10) were addressed at pages 14–18 of our Final Decision. Mere disagreement with our Final Decision also is not a proper basis for rehearing.” slip op. at 5
§ 101 eligibilitycites AlicePatents in suitUS 8,118,221
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.