• Ube Maxell Co., Ltd. v. LG Chem, Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 28, 2014 · IPR2013-00471 · APJ Francisco C Prats · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving claim 7 and Grounds 1 and 3 uninstituted because the petition did not clearly address claim 7’s peeling-force limitation.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “When rehearing a decision on a petition to institute an inter partes review, the Board “will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III. ANALYSIS” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “A. Claim Construction of Claim 7 Claim 7 of the ’870 patent recites “[t]he organic/inorganic composite separator according to claim 1, wherein the porous coating layer has a peeling force of 5 gf/cm or above.” Ex. 1101, 12:5-8.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenNot reached

    “The Decision to Institute concluded that Ground 1 was redundant to the grounds for which review was instituted. Decision to Institute 18. As to claim 7, Ube Maxell “either relies on the claim construction we decline to adopt, or makes no specific mention of the peel strength requirements of claim 7.” Id. The Decision further explained that “[i]n either event, we are not persuaded that Ube Maxell establishes adequately how the cited references disclose or suggest a separator with a porous coating layer having the peel strength required by claim 7.” Id. (citation omitted).” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 7,695,870

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.