- Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00780 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, finding no overlooked or misapprehended arguments concerning the denied grounds for claims 9, 10, 12–19, and 38.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. DISCUSSION 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 Industries, Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The panel addressed Petitioner’s theory of modifying Radermacher’s teachings with Kenna’s teachings on, inter alia, pages 20–21 of the Decision, as referred to by Petitioner immediately above. Id.; see also id. at 16–21. Although we are mindful that issues of bodily incorporation may be irrelevant to a combination, see In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc), the Decision considered the fact that Kenna’s surgical approach is based on intra-operative alignment while Radermacher’s surgical approach is directed to pre-operative alignment, and that Petitioner did not identify a sufficient rationale to combine the different disclosed approaches. Dec. 18–21. We are not persuaded that this difference is irrelevant to whether a person of ordinary skill would have combined these approaches. The Petition does not explain adequately how to adapt Kenna’s teachings to Radermacher’s template, or why this would have been obvious to a POSITA, in light of the references’ different alignment approaches. Pet. 71–73; see Dec. 20–21. Accordingly, we conclude that the Decision did not misapprehend or overlook any arguments in the Petition.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,062,302 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00779 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Smith & Nephew’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 9, 10, 12–19, and 38.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. DISCUSSION 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 Industries, Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–8, 11, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28–37, 39–43, 47, and 95–125 as obvious over Radermacher, Alexander, and Woolson, and denied institution of the remaining grounds presented in the Petitions. Dec. 1, 3, 6, 39–40. For example, we found that Petitioner had failed to make a threshold showing that claims 13, 18, and 38 of the ’302 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Radermacher, Alexander, Woolson, and Kenna, or over the combination of Radermacher, Fell, Woolson, and Kenna. See id. at 16–23. Additionally, we found that Petitioner had failed to make a threshold showing that claims 9, 10, and 12 of the ’302 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Radermacher, Alexander, and Woolson. See id. at 23–24. We also found that Petitioner had failed to make a threshold showing that claims 14–17 and 19 of the ’302 patent are unpatentable under” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“16–21. Although we are mindful that issues of bodily incorporation may be irrelevant to a combination, see In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc), the Decision considered the fact that Kenna’s surgical approach is based on intra-operative alignment while Radermacher’s surgical approach is directed to pre-operative alignment, and that Petitioner did not identify a sufficient rationale to combine the different disclosed approaches. Dec. 18–21. We are not persuaded that this difference is irrelevant to whether a person of ordinary skill would have combined these approaches. The Petition does not explain adequately how to adapt Kenna’s teachings to Radermacher’s template, or why this would have been obvious to a POSITA, in light of the references’ different alignment approaches. Pet. 71–73; see Dec. 20–21.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,062,302 - Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Shire LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 28, 2016 · IPR2015-02009 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Amerigen’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 uninstituted because Mehta did not disclose the claimed release limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW When reconsidering a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs 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 burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must, in relevant part, “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Amerigen’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“These arguments are not persuasive. First, Petitioner cites no authority for the proposition that a generic disclosure, such as that discussed above, is an express disclosure of every possible permutation of that generic disclosure. Second, even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument, that Mehta’s combined disclosures constitute an express disclosure of a composition capable of delayed release of “essentially all [of the drug] . . . within about 60 minutes,” non-instituted claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 further require that the delayed release is enteric (i.e., the composition releases the second dose of the drug in the intestines, not the stomach). As we noted in the Decision, however, Mehta does not use the word “enteric,” nor does Mehta discuss delivery of the delayed dose to the intestines. Dec. 28. Nevertheless, we considered the possibility that Mehta might inherently disclose a composition that releases into the intestine not less than 80% of the second dose of the drug within about 60 minutes of the delayed release. Accordingly, we turned to Mehta’s Examples 1–5, but determined that not one of the exemplified delayed release compositions achieved a release of “essentially all” of the drug from a delayed release coating within about 60 minutes—regardless of whether the delay was long enough to be considered enteric.3 Id. at 24. As we noted in the Decision,” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“This argument is not persuasive. We considered, for example, Dr. Elder’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect “that the number of variables and number of experimental runs to optimize the coating for the amphetamine would present no unusual problems of technology or expense” because one “can use statistical experimental design to optimize a formulation within the 21 trials that Mehta discloses to design one for amphetamine salts” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 471), as well as Dr. Elder’s testimony that one would expect “that routine optimization of the coating using the parameters identified by Mehta would provide enough guidance for controlling the release timing” (id. ¶ 512). Nevertheless, we found the actual results reported by Mehta to be more compelling. As we stated in the Decision: [N]one of Mehta’s delayed release formulations that could be considered to be enteric by virtue of their delay periods (i.e., those with delays of 4 or 5 hours) had release rates of “essentially all” of the drug anywhere near the required time period. Even if Mehta could be read to suggest that a delay of 4 or 5 hours followed by a release of essentially all of the delayed dose within 60 minutes would be desirable, we are not persuaded that Mehta’s disclosure that “the amount of drug released is influenced by: amount of coating, ratio of the two 4 Amerigen supported its challenges with the Declaration of Edmund J. Elder, Jr., Ph.D., R.Ph., executed September 30, 2015 (“Elder Declaration”) (Ex. 1005). polymers, amount of talc, and curing time” is adequate guidance for one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such a dosage form. In general, Mehta demonstrates that longer delays are accompanied by longer release times, with formulations that could be considered to provide enteric release (i.e., a release after a 4 or 5 hour [delay]) having 85% release times of 8 or more hours. Dec. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1003, Table 1).” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness - PTAB · May 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00979 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving claims 6 and 13 uninstituted over Raymond and Mutti and over Mutti, Kano, and Suffa.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The applicable standard for a request for rehearing of an institution decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a 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 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. For the reasons stated below, Petitioners’ request is denied.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner
“regarding “cap” and “valve holder” for claims 6 and 13. Reh’g Req. 1–5 (citing Pet. 17–19, 28). Petitioners explain that the Petition asserted clamping ring 27, body 16, nipple pieces 15, and upper membrane 7 combined are the required “cap” of claim 1. Id. at 2–4 (discussing Pet. 17– 19). Petitioners also explain that the Petition asserted clamping ring 27 meets the “valve holder” of dependent claims 6 and 13 “because the cap in Raymond is much more than clamping ring 27” and clamping ring 27 “is separable from the other parts of the claimed ‘cap.’” Id. at 5 (discussing Pet. 28). Petitioners further argue that the claims, specification, and case law do not require the recited valve holder and cap to be separate structures. Id. at 6–7, 12–13 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:38–41; Ex. 1013; Dec. 16).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“on Mutti, Kano, and Suffa was also misapprehended and should have been instituted. Reh’g Req. 2, 14–15. Petitioners acknowledge that they rely on Figure 6 for claim 1 and rely on Figures 1–5, which depict another embodiment, for claim 6 which depends from claim 1. Id. Petitioners, however, argue that the “motivation to combine the teachings of Mutti in one embodiment with the teachings of Mutti in another embodiment is entirely obvious—it’s the same reference.” Id. at 15. Petitioners do not identify where the asserted motivation was presented in their Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Even if the Petition included this particular motivation, it does not address the deficiency identified in the Decision. Citing to two embodiments in the same reference does not explain “how and why stop ring 23 of Figure 1 . . . , which holds membrane 22 in position . . . , would be combined with outer part 14b of Figure 6 . . . , which includes inner part/body 14a . . . that also holds membrane 22 in place . . . . In other words, inner part/body 14a, which is an integral part of outer part 14b, already holds membrane 22 in place.” Dec. 21. The Petition does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add stop ring 23 of Figure 1 to outer part 14b of Figure 6, when Mutti teaches each can hold a membrane in place. In particular, the Petition does not explain why both would be required when Mutti teaches that one is adequate. Without such an explanation in the Petition, we are not persuaded to modify our Decision regarding claims 6 and 13 as rendered obvious by Mutti, Kano, and Suffa.” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,695,841 - Meyer Products, LLC v. Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01247 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution on claims 18 under Pruss and Keeler and claims 1, 4–7, and 18 under Coates and Hetrick; other grounds failed the institution threshold.
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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsMixed
“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As applied here, the Petition must have specified which prior art structures are being relied on in the asserted ground such that “said lift frame, trunnion, A-frame and motion generating device all being attachable to and detachable from a vehicle as one assembly,” as recited by claim 1 and similarly required by claims 4–7 and 18. The Petition did not. slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“back bar and a pair of side bars arranged in a triangular or ‘A’ configuration,” the Board misapprehended or overlooked the fact that the Specification of the ’757 patent does not define the term “A-frame,” that the Specification states that the patent is “limited . . . by the scope of the following claims and their equivalents,” and that the Specification also uses the term “frame” without the prefix “A-” or uses the term preceded by “mount,” “lift,” or “A-”. Request 3–6. Petitioner argues that this misapprehension causes the Board’s construction to be divorced from the Specification and the record evidence. Request 6 (Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). As an initial matter, we note that Petitioner only cited to two portions of the Specification in the Petition in supporting its construction of “A-frame”: Ex. 1001, 4:62–64, 8:36–40. Pet. 8–9. Accordingly, we restrict ourselves to reconsideration of only this portion of the Specification. And upon reconsideration, we determine that the Board did not misapprehend or overlook the aforementioned cited portions of the Specification in construing “A-frame”; instead, the Board considered those portions expressly, but came to a different conclusion. Specifically, as set forth in the Decision, the fact that other shapes may be referred to in the Specification does not broaden the “A” shape of the “A-frame,” as recited in claims 1 and 4–7. The Decision notes Patent Owner’s suggestion that other claims, not at issue, might still allow for use of the invention with another shape for the frame. Decision 7. Petitioner argues that these other claims do not refer to an “A-frame.” Request 6. We agree. This argument is misplaced, however, as the lack of specificity of shape for the corresponding frame in the other claims is fully consistent with the notion that these other frames use a non-A-frame shape. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Decision misapprehended or overlooked any arguments with respect to the asserted ground of anticipation by Pruss.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As applied here, the Petition must have specified which prior art structures are being relied on in the asserted ground such that “said lift frame, trunnion, A-frame and motion generating device all being attachable to and detachable from a vehicle as one assembly,” as recited by claim 1 and similarly required by claims 4–7 and 18. The Petition did not. slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,928,757 - Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Courtesy Products, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 2, 2015 · IPR2014-01258 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Hamilton Beach’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 22–24, 49–51, 54, 55, 65, and 66 based on insufficient § 103 showing.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The applicable standard for a request for rehearing of an institution decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a 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 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. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s motion is denied. A. Decision to Institute We determined that Petitioner had not established a reasonable” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 22–24, 49–51, 54, 55, 65, and 66 of the ’512 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Patent No. 6,164,191 to Liu, iss. Dec. 26, 2000 (Ex. 1002, “Liu”); U.S. Patent No. 5,840,189 to Sylvan, iss. Nov. 24, 1998 (Ex. 1003, “Sylvan”); and U.S. Patent No. 3,446,624 to Luedtke, iss. May 27, 1969 (Ex. 1004, “Luedtke”) or over U.S. Patent No. 3,620,155 to Bixby, iss. Nov. 16, 1971 (Ex. 1005, “Bixby”); Sylvan; and Luedtke. Dec. 15–17, 18. Specifically, for claims 22–24 and 49–51, we determined that the Petition failed to explain how the relied upon references teach the limitations and how those same references would be combined. Dec. 12–13, 15. For claims 54, 55, 65, and 66, we agreed with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to explain where limitations are found and improperly incorporates arguments by reference to a Declaration of Alexander H. Slocum (Ex. 1009, “Slocum Declaration”). Dec. 17, 19.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“A petition must contain a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). The Slocum Declaration contains argument, not discussed adequately in the Petition, regarding where limitations are found in the references and why an ordinary artisan would have been led to combine the references to attain the subject matter of claim 26. Under these circumstances, the Petition violates our rule that prohibits arguments made in a supporting document from being incorporated by reference into a petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). After considering the cited portions of the Petition, we determine Petitioner has not shown that the Board misapprehended or overlooked a matter addressed in the Petition, and therefore, has not carried its burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“hospitality industry regulations teaches this limitation.” Pet. 33, 37 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 53–55; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 100, 108). The portion of the Petition now cited by Petitioner provides a description of Liu, Sylvan, and Luedtke (Pet. 17–19) and a “Motivation to Combine Liu with Sylvan and Luedtke” (Pet. 19–22). Petitioner’s arguments do not explain how the descriptions of Liu, Sylvan, and Luedtke, and the asserted rationales to combine these particular references, support the contention that “Liu in view of relevant hospitality industry regulations teaches this limitation”—where the cited portions do not discuss “relevant hospitality industry regulations.” In sum, Petitioner does not direct us to any argument in the Petition that would have supported extending our analysis, regarding independent claims 53 and 64 and Liu, Sylvan, and Luedtke, to claims 54 and 65, or an analysis of “Liu in view of relevant hospitality industry regulations.” We are, therefore, unpersuaded to modify our Decision regarding claims 54 and 65.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,770,512 - Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Courtesy Products, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 2, 2015 · IPR2014-01257 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Hamilton Beach’s rehearing request, leaving claims 6, 7, 19, and 26 uninstituted because the Petition did not adequately explain the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The applicable standard for a request for rehearing of an institution decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a 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 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. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s motion is denied. A. Decision to Institute We determined that Petitioner had not established a reasonable” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Combine Liu with Sylvan and Luedtke” and that provides several rationales for combining these particular references and no others. Pet. 21–23. Petitioner fails to identify a portion of the Petition that extends one or more of these rationales for combining Liu, Sylvan, and Luedtke to “Van Damme,” cited for claims 6 and 7. Petitioner also cites page 10 of its Petition, which describes KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) and argues that “the Examiner did not apply its principles . . . during the prosecution of the ’037 Patent.” Pet. 9–10. The cited portion of the Petition does not present an argument that claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable over Liu and “Van Damme.” The Petition does not discuss any rationale for combining Liu and Van Damme. Petitioner’s arguments for claims 6 and 7, therefore, do not persuade us to modify our Decision.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner cites a part of its Petition that is titled “Motivation to Combine Liu with Sylvan and Luedtke” and that provides several rationales for combining these particular references and no others. Pet. 21–23. Petitioner fails to identify a portion of the Petition that extends one or more of these rationales for combining Liu, Sylvan, and Luedtke to “Van Damme,” cited for claims 6 and 7. Petitioner also cites page 10 of its Petition, which describes KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) and argues that “the Examiner did not apply its principles . . . during the prosecution of the ’037 Patent.” Pet. 9–10. The cited portion of the Petition does not present an argument that claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable over Liu and “Van Damme.” The Petition does not discuss any rationale for combining Liu and Van Damme. Petitioner’s arguments for claims 6 and 7, therefore, do not persuade us to modify our Decision.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,311,037
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.