• International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. v. Zoomessence, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 25, 2016 · IPR2015-01418 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place because Patent Owner did not show an abuse of discretion in the preliminary claim construction.

  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.” 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., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Claim constructions and other determinations set forth in the Decision on Institution are preliminary in nature and may be revisited during the trial in concert with the presentation of evidence. Therefore, Patent Owner may continue to press claim construction contentions and other arguments in its Patent Owner Response. However, we decline to revisit the claim construction at this time for purposes of the Decision on Institution. Patent Owner may disagree with the Institution Decision, but Patent Owner has not shown an erroneous conclusion of law, clearly erroneous factual findings, or a clear error of judgment in the Institution Decision to show an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 3

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 8,939,388

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.