- Mobileye Global, Inc. v. Facet Technology Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01110 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place on claim 15 based on the Gallagher–Lumia obviousness challenge.
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 previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“or overlooked any matter. As we explained in the Institution Decision, the ’255 patent discloses that the recited characterization profile allows the system to convert the intensity values measured by the intensity sensor into luminance values based on the sensor’s ability to sense the particular color of the measured light. Inst. Dec. 21; Ex. 1001, 11:41–48. The ’255 patent states that “the light intensity sensor’s 280 ability to sense . . . a particular color” is the “the light intensity sensor’s 280 profile for [that] particular color.” Ex. 1001, 11:45–47. The ’255 patent further states that this “[l]ight intensity sensor 280 characterization is essential for high precision computations.” Id. at 11:48–49. Thus, as we stated in the Institution Decision, the recited “characterization profile” refers to a conversion factor used to convert the measured light intensity into luminance. As this conversion factor is based on the light intensity sensor’s ability to sense the particular color of light reflected by the road sign, we agree that it is empirical information. Patent Owner fails to explain adequately how the fact that the ’255 patent discloses storing multiple conversion factors for multiple colors of measured light in a digital look-up-table (see id. at 11:56–59 (“The light intensity sensor characterization 275 is empirical information about the light intensity sensor 280 that is used to create the [look-up table] 475.”)) has any bearing on our interpretation.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Owner to the Institution Decision where we fully addressed Patent Owner’s contentions. See Inst. Dec. 29–31. As we explained, “Petitioner proposes to incorporate Lumia’s teaching of measuring luminance values into Gallagher’s system, and argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success given Gallagher’s disclosure of determining calibration factors for each individual sensor in the array of sensors.” Id. at 30. In other words, Petitioner proposes to use Gallagher’s array of sensors to measure luminance in the manner taught by Lumia. We also explained in the Institution Decision how Lumia discloses using a video camera to measure the luminance of a road sign. Id. at 27–29. We further explained that, in the Petition, “Petitioner sets forth reasoning with rational underpinning to support its contentions that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia” by, for example, “argu[ing] that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels.” Id. at 30–30 (citing Pet. 46). We further explained that Petitioner’s arguments were supported by the testimony of it witness, Dr. Thorpe. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,335,255 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00182 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Rehearing
Denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request; the Board found no abuse of discretion in instituting IPR of claims 1, 24, and 25 on the stated § 103 grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2022). In a rehearing request, the party challenging the decision “must specifically identify” (1) “all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) “the place where each matter was previously addressed” in an earlier submission. Id.; see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 90.3 “A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the underlying decision.” MicroSurgical Tech., Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., PGR2021-00026, Paper 14 at 2 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2021). “Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not explain why issue preclusion permits the Board to hold the district court’s finding that Cisco “copied software functionality from the [infringed] patents” against Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 16, 54–56; Req. Reh’g 3, 14–15. Issue preclusion “is appropriate only if”: (1) “the issue is identical to one decided in the first action”; (2) “the issue was actually litigated in the first action”; (3) “resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action”; and (4) the party defending against preclusion “had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., 988 F.3d 1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Patent Owner does not address any of these requirements for issue preclusion. See Prelim. Resp. 16, 54–56; Req. Reh’g 3, 14–15.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Regarding the policy’s whitelist processing, if the security device determines that a newly received packet with encrypted data is correlated to the hostname corresponding to the whitelisted destination domain, the security device filters the packet by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain. See Ex. 1004, 7:52–59, 16:36–42; Ex. 1003 ¶ 90; see also Ex. 1004, 6:1–11. Filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain occurs “without having to decrypt the encrypted secure tunnel session traffic.” Ex. 1004, 5:24–27, 5:35–42, 7:1–9, 11:7–19; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94, 113. Further, filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain results from applying a packet-filtering rule (a whitelisted destination domain) to the packet. Hence, we disagree with Patent Owner that Buruganahalli’s security devices process whitelisted packets by “forward[ing] the entire encrypted stream without . . . filtering encrypted packets.” See Req. Reh’g 10. We also disagree with Patent Owner that “encrypted packets in whitelisted sessions” are (1) “forwarded without applying any packet-filtering rules” and (2) “allowed uninspected.” See id. at 11 n.1, 13. Regarding the policy’s blacklist processing, if the security device determines that a newly received packet with encrypted data is correlated to the hostname corresponding to the blacklisted destination domain, the security device either blocks the packet (as Patent Owner contends) or filters the packet by forwarding it to a decryption engine. See Ex. 1004, 7:60–67, 9:61–67, 14:33–36, 16:43–48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–91, 94, 97, 108, 118, 127, 137; Req. Reh’g 10–11, 13. Filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to a decryption engine occurs “without having to decrypt the encrypted secure tunnel session traffic.” Ex. 1004, 5:24–27, 5:35–42, 7:1–9, 11:7–19; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94, 113, 135. Further, filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to a decryption engine results from applying a packet-filtering rule (a blacklisted destination domain) to the packet and corresponds to limitation [1.g] and the similar limitations in claims 24 and 25. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 134–135. The Institution Decision explained how Buruganahalli’s security devices may filter packets comprising unencrypted data and packets comprising encrypted data according to claims 1, 24, and 25 by applying a whitelist/blacklist policy to the packets. See, e.g., Inst. Dec. 57–60, 66–67, 69–71. As the Institution Decision explained and as discussed above, “for each session packets comprising unencrypted data and packets comprising encrypted data are correlated and filtered based on the hostname (destination domain) extracted from the handshake traffic, and then the correlated and filtered packets are processed separately from packets destined for other domains.” See Inst. Dec. 69–70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 120–121, 133–135; Ex. 1004, 7:39–67, 8:55–60, 11:47–51, 14:21–33, 14:50–55, 16:32–48. Buruganahalli discloses additional filtering after forwarding a newly received packet with encrypted data to a decryption engine, e.g., as occurs in Buruganahalli’s Figure 3B embodiment. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 6:17–22, 9:67–10:4, 12:4–64, Fig. 3B. But claims 1, 24, and 25 use the transitional term “comprising.” Ex. 1001, 25:14, 28:59, 29:29–30. Hence, the claims do not “exclude unrecited elements,” such as additional filtering after forwarding a newly received packet with encrypted data to a decryption engine. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus N.V., 864 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,917,856 - Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Solas Oled, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 25, 2021 · IPR2019-01668 · APJ Jessica C Kaiser · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–20 unpatentable over Moran and Joo-based obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “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, a reply, or a sur-reply.” Id. A request for rehearing, therefore, is not an opportunity to merely disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s arguments regarding motivation to combine the teachings of Moran and Joo. In our Decision, we found that, “[a]s Patent Owner acknowledges (PO Sur-reply 26), Petitioner’s combination does not rely on any manufacturing techniques in Joo.” Dec. 21. We agreed with Petitioner that “creat[ing] additional touch sensitive regions on the sides of the device as taught in Joo,” provides the benefits attributed to Joo, but the benefits “are not wholly dependent upon the injection molding technique of Joo.” Id. (citing Pet. 66–67). Although we appreciate that Joo uses injection molding to form his device, we determined that the “benefits [of Joo] inure from having the touch sensitive portion on the side of the display rather than the manufacturing technique that results in that touch sensitive portion (i.e., injection molding versus bending the touch sensitive portion to wrap it around the edge of the display).” Id. at 21–22. This is consistent with Petitioner’s “Motivation to Combine” set forth in the Petition, i.e., “application of a known technique [Joo’s teaching of wrapping a touch sensor around the edges of a touchscreen display] to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement [Moran’s flexible capacitive touch sensor for a touchscreen device].” Pet. 67 (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). Indeed, in our Decision on Institution (Paper 7, 21), we expressly stated that we did not “understand Petitioner’s combination to rely on any manufacturing techniques in Joo.” Accordingly, we determine we did not change reasoning midstream as to why we agreed with Petitioner’s motivation to combine the teachings of Moran and Joo, and thus, did not misapprehend or overlook Petitioner’s motivation to combine the teachings of Moran and Joo.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We disagree. In our Decision, we found Dr. Wolfe’s testimony “credible and persuasive that resolving [implementation] details would have been well within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Dec. 23 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 178–183). Dr. Wolfe provided detailed testimony supported by objective evidence on this point. See id. (citing Pet. 68); Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 182–183 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:13–21; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 8–9; Ex. 1018, 2955, 2962; Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 25, 33, 81; Ex. 1003, 21:8–12, 27:48–28:38, 29:55– 30:33). Thus, even if Mr. Credelle’s testimony was not directly rebutted, we properly weighed Mr. Credelle’s testimony against Dr. Wolfe’s testimony. As such, we determined that a preponderance of the evidence supported Petitioner’s contention that an ordinary artisan would have known how to modify Moran to arrive at a substrate and touch sensor configured to wrap around an edge of a display. See Dec. 26. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we overlooked or failed to consider any argument or evidence related to how the proposed modification would have been achieved.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Not reached
“D. Constitutionality The remainder of Patent Owner’s arguments on rehearing are devoted to contesting the constitutionality of the appointments of the Administrative Patent Judges. Req. Reh’g 9–12. We decline to address Patent Owner’s constitutional challenge except to note that the constitutionality of the appointments of the Administrative Patent Judges was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970, 1986–87, 1997 (2021).” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,256,311 - PTAB · Mar 22, 2021 · IPR2020-00336 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place for claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 because no construction error or abuse of discretion was shown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“IV. CONCLUSION On this record, Patent Owner neither persuades us that we overlooked or misapprehended any matter, nor sufficiently shows that instituting an inter partes review of claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the ’725 patent was an abuse of discretion. V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We maintain, at this stage of the proceeding, that the construction of conversational flow should not include “(for instance, the running of an application on a server as requested by a client), where some conversational flows involve more than one connection, and some even involve more than one exchange of packets between a client and a server.” As we explained in the Institution Decision, phrases beginning with “for instance,” “where some,” and “some” are “merely exemplary and non-limiting.” Inst. Dec. 31. Patent Owner does not persuade us, on this record, that omission of these phrases from our definition of “conversational flow” is, as a matter of claim construction, erroneous. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 811 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that exemplary language “introduces an example of a broader genus rather than limiting the genus to the exemplary species”).” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“proceeding, that our construction of “conversational flow” is the result of a misunderstanding or misapprehension of the claimed invention or the prior art. IV. CONCLUSION On this record, Patent Owner neither persuades us that we overlooked or misapprehended any matter, nor sufficiently shows that instituting an inter partes review of claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the ’725 patent was an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 6
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 6,665,725 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carucel Investments, L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2021 · IPR2019-01298 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place its decision that all challenged claims were unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: 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. A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the Final Written Decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“As discussed further below, after considering all the evidence, we provided in the Final Written Decision a detailed analysis of Patent Owner’s arguments, and rejected Patent Owner’s proposed limitations for “mobile unit,” determining that the ordinary meaning should apply and no further construction was necessary. Final Dec. 14–26. D. The Final Written Decision Our analysis of “mobile unit” in the Final Written Decision was guided by Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Final Dec. 11. In summary, for the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that our analysis of “mobile unit” under Phillips was incorrect, or that we overlooked or misapprehended Patent Owner’s arguments or evidence in that analysis.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,221,904 - Solvay USA Inc. v. Worldsource Enterprises, LLC, Eco Agro Resources LLC, And Eco World Group LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 1, 2021 · IPR2020-00768 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution of IPR on claims 1–17 in place because it found no abuse of discretion under § 325(d).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a 1 Patent Owner originally filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7) that violated the word count limit in our rules. After conferring with Petitioner and the Board, Patent Owner filed a truncated version of Paper 7 that deletes the text that exceeded the word count limit at the end of the document to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(1). Paper 9. For purposes of this Decision, any references or citations to the Preliminary Response refer to the truncated document filed as Paper 9. decision on a petition, the decision will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Owner does not clearly identify what matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and where those matters were previously addressed. Instead, it simply repeats arguments and information we have already considered and which we used to form the basis for our determination in the Institution Decision. To the extent Patent Owner believes we did not assign the appropriate weight to events that occurred during prosecution of the parent application of the ’231 patent, we note that Patent Owner’s own arguments derived from that information are based on speculation about what is a “more probable” explanation for the Examiner’s conduct. Rather than rely on speculation about the Examiner’s conduct during prosecution of the parent application, we based our determination on facts derived from the prosecution history of the ’231 patent itself. In that regard, we maintain that “[t]he record does not reflect any substantive consideration of CN400 during prosecution of the ’231 patent, including any consideration of CN400 in combination with Iannotta or Kolc, as presented in the Petition.” Dec. 9 (emphasis added). Nothing in Patent Owner’s recitation of undisputed facts persuasively contradicts this determination. Req. Reh’g 8.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Nevertheless, even if we were to give weight to Patent Owner’s argument that “it is more probable that the Examiner believed CN400 could not be properly combined” with Kolc and Iannotta, the outcome here would not change. As set forth in our Institution Decision, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions that CN400 is non-analogous art that would not be combinable with Kolc and Iannotta. Dec. 19, 24–25. Thus, to the extent Patent Owner contends the Examiner believed CN400 could not be combined with Kolc and Iannotta for the same reasons Patent Owner presented in its Preliminary Response, we would consider such hypothetical reasoning by the Examiner to involve a misapprehension of the specific teachings of the relevant prior art, which would constitute material error. See Advanced Bionics, 8.” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“Iannotta is prior art. Reh’g Req. 10. In presenting its arguments, however, Patent Owner acknowledges “[t]his issue was not argued in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response,” and is based on new information Patent Owner became aware of since the filing date of its Sur-reply. Req. Reh’g 9. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Moreover, Patent Owner has not directed us to any matters that we overlooked or misapprehended, and the place where those matters were previously addressed. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,301,231 - Bluecatbio Ma Inc. v. Yantai Ausbio Laboratories Co., Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 11, 2021 · PGR2020-00051 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no overlooked evidence or improper burden shifting in its decision to institute review.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked either a deficiency in Petitioner’s evidence or Patent Owner’s rebuttal arguments. Nor are we persuaded that we abused our discretion in determining that the Petition meets the threshold for institution of inter partes review. B. The Board did not Improperly Shift the Burden of Proof to Patent Owner” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“as improper burden-shifting. Our statements identify arguments that were not made by Patent Owner in the Preliminary Response or by Dr. Katz in his declaration. After reviewing the record again, we determine that the statements are accurate. We did not shift the burden of persuasion or the burden of production to Patent Owner. Immediately following the first sentence quoted above, the Decision states: “[o]n this record, Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1012) is sufficient to show that at least the main part of the liquid expelled from the reaction vessel unit is driven into the drain of the Gyro Washer.” Dec. 26. Following the second sentence quoted above, the Decision states: We are mindful that the burden of proof is on Petitioner, not Patent Owner. We have considered Patent Owner’s criticisms of Petitioner’s evidence, and although they cast some doubt on Petitioner’s contentions, we determine that, on this preliminary record, Petitioner’s experimental and testimonial evidence is sufficient to meet the threshold for institution of post-grant review. Dec. 27. The Decision correctly placed the burden on Petitioner to show that the claim limitations are met by the Gyro Washer.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 10,338,063 - PTAB · Feb 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00892 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Wildcat Licensing WI LLC’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion or overlooked matter in granting institution of the challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if substantial evidence does not support a factual finding, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. 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). Also, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) sets forth, in relevant part that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“As we determined in the Decision, Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims in its challenges based on IBM. Petitioner argued that “IBM’s ‘[H]all effect sensor’ indicates tool ‘TORQUE’ to IBM’s controller 6 so that IBM’s controller requires IBM’s tool to achieve the ‘set torque’ at each fastening location in the ‘correct process sequence.’” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003, 81– 82). Petitioner also argued that IBM teaches that an operator “must also wait for the set torque to be achieved on each screw before moving onto the next screw.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1003, 82) (emphases added). Petitioner’s declarant opined that “IBM’s microcontroller 6 measures the applied torque with ‘a [H]all effect sensor.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 111 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82). Petitioner’s arguments and declarant testimony found support in the preliminary record. As quoted in the Decision, IBM itself states that “controller circuit 6 . . . sense[s] when correct torque is achieved by linking As discussed in the Decision, IBM also states that that “[t]he problem is to ensure that four screws 5 fixing two product parts 3 & 4 together are tightened to a specific torque in a specific sequence.” Dec. 19–20 (quoting from Ex. 1003, 82) (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53 (asserting what IBM teaches). Also, the only figure of IBM shows “TORQUE” being sent to controller circuit 6. Ex. 1003, 81; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 108 (“IBM diagrammatically illustrates the tool’s sensed ‘TORQUE’ as a signal input being received by IBM’s microcontroller 6 from the torque-sensing ‘[H]all effect sensor in the driver 11’ ([Ex. 1003] p. 82).”). Thus, Petitioner’s arguments, Petitioner’s declarant testimony, and IBM itself sufficiently showed at the preliminary stage that IBM senses or measures correct torque by linking into a Hall effect sensor in driver 11. Pet. 35–36; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53, 108; Ex. 1003, 82. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments for IBM raised a factual question regarding what IBM teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art, and such issues are best decided on a full record. See Prelim. Resp. 26–49. We agree that Patent Owner does not have a burden to show IBM does not measure torque; however, for purposes of institution, Petitioner sufficiently showed that IBM senses or measures torque.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 7–11 (PTAB. Feb. 13, 2020) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). Req. Reh’g 13–15 (citing Prelim. Resp. 54–64; Dec. 27). Specifically, Petitioner contends that the Decision “conflates or overlooks the two separate requirements in the first part of Advanced Bionics’ framework (art or arguments)” because we concluded “only that ‘Petitioner’s arguments were not previously presented to the Office.’” Id. at 14. However, even assuming arguendo, that substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office, the record and Petitioner sufficiently show that the Examiner materially erred for the reasons discussed in the Board decision reversing the rejection based on Gass alone. The record also shows that the Examiner did not address that error subsequently before allowing the claims. Specifically, the Examiner failed to identify the Office. Additionally, as discussed in the Decision, Petitioner’s demonstration of a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges based on IBM, as well as the Federal Circuit’s determination in SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018) were considered in our analysis of determining whether to institute review. Dec. 28–29. We determined that our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) was not sufficiently implicated so that § 325(d)’s statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting on all of Petitioner’s challenges. Id. at 28–29. Further, even if exercise of our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the challenges based on Gass was warranted, the record provided no reason for extending our discretion under § 325(d) to the IBM-based challenges to deny the entire Petition under the circumstances presented in this proceeding. Id. at 29.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“The Decision also considered the prior Board decision regarding a rejection based on Gass. Dec. 30 (discussing Ex. 1018). As discussed above and in the Decision, the preliminary record did not indicate that Gass teaches away from the challenged claims. Thus, we do not agree that the Decision overlooked or misapprehended the prior Board decision regarding the rejection based on Gass and overlooked or misapprehended that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges based on Gass.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial - Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2021 · IPR2020-00202 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution of review on all challenged claims and grounds in place.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“I. ANALYSIS When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion 1 Patent Owner also requested rehearing by the Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) to “clarify the date from which Fintiv Factor 4 should be analyzed, namely, the Petition’s filing date.” Req. Reh’g 1; Ex. 3001. On October 27, 2020, POP denied Patent Owner’s request for review. Paper 19. 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. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 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 party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Factor 4 must be constrained to the facts as they existed when the Petition was filed. For example, in the Board’s informative decision in Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp.—Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative) (“Sand Revolution”), the panel considered and gave weight to Petitioner’s stipulation to withdraw certain prior art references from a related litigation if inter partes review was instituted. Sand Revolution at 11–12. Importantly, the stipulation in Sand Revolution arose long after the Petition was filed. Compare IPR2019-01393, Paper 1, 88 (petition with July 25, 2019, filing date), with IPR2019-01393, Ex. 1015 (stipulation to withdraw prior art dated April 13, 2020). Here, we also considered the parties’ more recent efforts in the underlying litigation to narrow the issues at trial, which reduced concerns of duplicative efforts between the District Court and the Board and minimized the potential for conflicting decisions. See, e.g., Dec. 15–16. This is consistent with the policy considerations underlying Factor 4 in Fintiv, namely, “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Fintiv at 12.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,212,586 - Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2021 · IPR2020-00200 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in its Fintiv analysis and decision to institute review of claims 1–5 and 8–12.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 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 party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Factor 4 must be constrained to the facts as they existed when the Petition was filed. For example, in the Board’s informative decision in Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp.—Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative) (“Sand Revolution”), the panel considered and gave weight to Petitioner’s stipulation to withdraw certain prior art references from a related litigation if inter partes review was instituted. Sand Revolution at 11–12. Importantly, the stipulation in Sand Revolution arose long after the Petition was filed. Compare IPR2019-01393, Paper 1, 88 (petition with July 25, 2019, filing date), with IPR2019-01393, Ex. 1015 (stipulation to withdraw prior art dated April 13, 2020). Here, we also considered the parties’ more recent efforts in the underlying litigation to narrow the issues at trial, which reduced concerns of duplicative efforts between the District Court and the Board and minimized the potential for conflicting decisions. See, e.g., Dec. 16. This is consistent with the policy considerations underlying Factor 4 in Fintiv, namely, “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Fintiv at 12.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,084,991
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.