• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01270 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 2–5, 11–14, 22, 23, and 26–28 under § 325(d) because substantially the same prior art was previously presented and material Office error was not shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “applicant, such as on an [IDS].” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8. Because it was submitted in an IDS during prosecution of the ’380 patent, Sourcefire qualifies as art that was “previously presented” to the Office.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied

    “Bionics framework, and based on the particular circumstances here, we conclude that the same or substantially the same prior art as in the Petition was presented previously to the Office, and Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that discretionary denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is appropriate. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). V. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 18

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,735,380
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01156 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1, 6–10, 15–21, 24, 25, 29, and 30, because the same prior art was previously presented and no material Office error was shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “presented to the Office. Section 325(d) states, in relevant part, “[in] determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The Board uses the following two-part framework in determining whether to exercise discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 9

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,735,380
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01154 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–27 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that either asserted Jungck-based obviousness combination rendered the claims unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “c. Summary of Claim 1 In sum, Petitioner does not explain how the edge cache devices contribute or detract from Jungck’s ability to teach or suggest the “entire boundary” and “all traffic” limitations of the challenged claims. The evidence of device 900 and claims of collateral estoppel do not remedy this deficiency. In the absence of such evidence, Petitioner has failed to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge.” See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Jungck and Wood meets the limitation of “[a] method of filtering packets at a packet security gateway, of a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network protected by the packet security gateway . . . comprising: a first set of packet filtering rules to be applied to all network traffic traversing the boundary.”” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition’s avoidance of the operation of edge caches when edge caches are important in the processing of traffic flowing across the boundary undermines this ground of the Petition. If Petitioner wished to rely on an embodiment or configuration in which the edge caches were irrelevant, the edge caches were redundant to the edge server, or the edge caches were unnecessary, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to explain sufficiently how and why that was the case. Petitioner was aware of the edge caches because it appears to have omitted all references to them in the Petition yet did not explain why this was done. Additionally, although Petitioner’s declarant does include references to edge caches, its declarant also does not explain sufficiently the relevance of those edge caches. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 148, 212, 214, 215, 227, 323. Additionally, Petitioner’s references to collateral estoppel do not relieve Petitioner from the burden to describe its contentions regarding obviousness in the Petition.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “Our reviewing court has held that “[c]ollateral estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1351–1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). “It is well established that collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, applies in the administrative context.” MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted); Webpower, Inc. v. WAG ACQUISITION, LLC, Case IPR2016- 01239, Paper 21 at 26–28 (PTAB Dec. 26, 2017). “Issue preclusion [i.e., collateral estoppel] 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) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377 (citing Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313, 91 S. Ct. 1501, 28 L.Ed. 2d 788 (1971) (finding collateral estoppel applies to a patentee who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of a patent in a prior federal case.)). Patent Owner points out that the claims at issue in IPR2018-01443, 1444, 1513 (“prior IPRs”) did not include the “entire boundary” or “all traffic” limitations. Prelim. Resp. 26–27, 32, 44. We agree. Collateral estoppel does not apply because there are differences between the claim limitation at issue here and the adjudicated claim limitations at issue in the prior IPRs. See In re Freeman, 30 F.3d at 1465; accord MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377–1378; cf. In re Arunachalam, 709 F. App’x 699, 702 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (finding collateral estoppel applies to an adjudicated claim that is not “materially different” than the adjudicated claims).” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner requests that the preamble of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 be treated as limiting. Prelim. Resp. 16–17. These preambles provide antecedent basis for “packet security gateway,” “boundary,” “network,” and “one or more other networks.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 20:64–21:2, 22:13–18, 23:35–42). The preambles also recite the “plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a [protected] network,” which is “essential to understand” the “all traffic” limitation in the body of these claims and thus ‘“give life, meaning, and vitality”’ to the claims. Id. (citing Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). The preambles provide the context for the body of the independent claims by defining the arrangement of the “plurality of packet security gateways” relative to the “boundary” of the protected network and thus the basis for applying “packet filtering rules . . . to all network traffic traversing the boundary.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 20:64–21:8). The “entire interface” limitation also was relied on during prosecution of the parent ’437 Patent’s claims to distinguish them from the prior art. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2008, 254–61; Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808–09). Petitioner does not dispute the preambles are limiting. Pet. 18–21, 37. For, the reasons above, we construe the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as limiting. After review of the current record, we conclude that, other than determining the preambles are limiting, no express claim construction is necessary to determine whether to institute review of the challenged claims. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,785,266
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01153 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

  Institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 1–20 unpatentable as obvious over Jungck, alone or with RFC2003.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “c. Summary of Claim 1 In sum, Petitioner does not explain how the edge cache devices contribute or detract from Jungck’s ability to teach or suggest the “entire boundary” and “all traffic” limitations of the challenged claims. The evidence of device 900 and claims of collateral estoppel do not remedy this deficiency. In the absence of such evidence, Petitioner has failed to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge.” See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Jungck meets the limitation of “[a] method of filtering packets at a packet security gateway, of a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network protected by the packet security gateway . . . comprising: a first set of packet filtering rules to be applied to all network traffic traversing the boundary.”” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “c. Summary of Claim 1 In sum, Petitioner does not explain how the edge cache devices contribute or detract from Jungck’s ability to teach or suggest the “entire boundary” and “all traffic” limitations of the challenged claims. The evidence of device 900 and claims of collateral estoppel do not remedy this deficiency. In the absence of such evidence, Petitioner has failed to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge.” See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Jungck meets the limitation of “[a] method of filtering packets at a packet security gateway, of a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network protected by the packet security gateway . . . comprising: a first set of packet filtering rules to be applied to all network traffic traversing the boundary.”” slip op. at 22

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Whether or not this was known as a general proposition does not address reasons why Jungck’s traffic appears to bypass the edge servers upon which Petitioner relies and why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Jungck’s operation to apply its rules to all traffic or why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Jungck’s operation to use device 900 instead of the edge servers and what effect that would have on the rest of the operation of Jungck. Petitioner also appears to rely on its declarant who testifies it was well-known to block all incoming traffic. Fintiv Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1004 [Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti] ¶¶ 72–73). Nevertheless, this section of the Declaration was not cited in the Petition but rather is referred to indirectly in a portion of the Declaration which is cited in the Petition. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 241). Paragraph 211 of the Declaration states “[a]s also discussed in Section IV, the use of block lists (e.g., blacklists) to perform packet filtering, including both ingress and egress filtering, was well-known,” but does not refer to paragraphs 72 and 73. Ex. 1004 ¶ 211 (emphasis added). As the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explained, “[a] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.” DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”). Additionally, paragraph 72 of the Declaration contains new argument regarding “firewall” and “standard networking practice” based on references (Bharali and Wood) not cited for that proposition in the Petition. Ex. 1004 ¶ 72. We find the Petition improperly incorporates this section of the Declaration by reference because the basis of the “firewall” argument is not explained sufficiently in the Petition. Cisco Systems, Inc., v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 8 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative opinion) (describing the proper course of action as “to not consider arguments that are not made in the Petition, but are instead incorporated by reference”).” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “other, Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art on October 22, 2012 (the filing date of the application that matured in the ’437 patent), would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, four years of professional experience, and a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attack. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004 [Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti] ¶¶ 34–36). Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill, which Patent Owner does not dispute at this stage, appears appropriate for the technology addressed by this proceeding.” slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,567,437
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01155 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–20 under § 325(d), finding the asserted art and arguments were previously presented and Petitioner failed to show material Office error.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “Examiner during prosecution of the ’343 patent and that Mantripragada is cumulative to Buck, which was considered during prosecution of the ’343 patent. We further find that Patent Owner’s argument during prosecution that the packet transformation function is configured “to prevent an exfiltration operation” resulted in allowance of the claims of the ’343 patent, which overlaps with the argument that Patent Owner makes in this case against Petitioner’s challenges. Prelim. Resp. 35–36. Petitioner has not shown that the two-stage filtering process was a basis for the Examiner’s allowance of the claims of the ’343 patent over the cited prior art. We, therefore, find that the same or substantially the same prior art, and the same or substantially the same arguments, previously were presented to the Office under the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Petitioner’s declarant testifies regarding the prosecution history of the ’343 patent. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–90. He concludes that “the ’343 Patent claims were apparently allowed because the Examiner concluded that the prior art of record failed to disclose a two-stage packet filtering process,” mirroring Petitioner’s argument. Id. ¶ 90. Petitioner’s declarant does not indicate how the facts support this conclusion. As mentioned, Patent Owner’s argument during prosecution leading to allowance was that the ’343 patent’s claims recite applying the packet transformation function configured to prevent an exfiltration operation. Ex. 1002, 1614–1615, 1639. Petitioner’s declarant does not explain sufficiently where in the prosecution history Patent Owner argued that a two-stage packet filtering process distinguished the ’343 patent’s claims over the prior art, or where the Examiner allowed the claims because of two-stage packet filtering. Accordingly, lacking evidentiary support, the declarant’s testimony is entitled to little or no weight on this point. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Thus, we see no additional evidence or facts in the Petition that warrant reconsideration of the prior art. Therefore, we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 18

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,567,343
• Revance Therapeutics, Inc. v. Medy-Tox, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · IPR2021-01204 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 3, 4, 11, or 12 obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “In this case, Petitioner argues that “longer” lasting means “the longer duration of efficacy of an animal-protein-free botulinum toxin composition when compared to an animal-protein-containing botulinum toxin composition that is dosed at the same or comparable amount and administered in the same manner (e.g., by injection) to the same or comparable location(s).” Pet. 20 (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:53–59). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction because it is consistent with the express definition in the ’731 patent Specification. See Ex. 1001, 4:53–59.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “been obvious over the combination of Ruegg, BOTOX Label, and Jung I. Pet. 21–58. Petitioner provides claim charts, mapping each limitation of claims 1–3 and 9–11 to the teachings of Ruegg, BOTOX Label, and Jung I. Id. at 23–30, 48–52. Petitioner further explains its arguments, including its contention that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Ruegg and BOTOX Label, and Jung I would have 12 had a reasonable expectation of success when doing so. Id. at 30–48, 52–58. Despite its detailed presentation, Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in this challenge.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s proposed construction of the term “longer.” See supra, Section II.A (“[L]onger” lasting means “the longer duration of efficacy of an animal-protein-free botulinum toxin composition when compared to an animal-protein-containing botulinum toxin composition that is dosed at the same or comparable amount and administered in the same manner (e.g., by injection) to the same or comparable location(s).” (emphasis added)). Although Petitioner is correct in pointing out that Ruegg compared the effect of “5.0 U/kg of either RT003 or BOTOX®” (Pet. 35; Ex. 1004, Figure 1), 13 Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that 5.0 U/kg of RT003 is the same or comparable amount as 5.0 U/kg of BOTOX. Indeed, BOTOX Label explains that one unit (U) of BOTOX “corresponds to the calculated median intraperitoneal lethal dose (LD50) in mice.” Ex. 1007, 548. BOTOX Label emphasizes that the method for performing the assay is specific to BOTOX. Id. “Due to specific details of this assay such as the vehicle, dilution scheme and laboratory protocols for the various mouse LD50 assays,” it warns, units of biological activity of BOTOX “cannot be compared to nor converted into Units of any other botulinum toxin or any toxin assessed with any other specific assay method.” Id.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,731
• Revance Therapeutics, Inc. v. Medy-Tox, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · IPR2021-01203 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 5–10, 13, and 14 because Petitioner did not show that Ruegg’s RT003 and BOTOX doses were the same or comparable amount.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, only the term “longer” needs express construction.” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “same or comparable amount and administered in the same manner (e.g., by injection) to the same or comparable location(s).” (emphasis added)). Although Petitioner is correct in pointing out that Ruegg compared the effect of “5.0 U/kg of either RT003 or BOTOX®” (Pet. 27; Ex. 1004, Figure 1), Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that 5.0 U/kg of RT003 is the same or comparable amount as 5.0 U/kg of BOTOX. Indeed, BOTOX Label explains that one unit (U) of BOTOX “corresponds to the calculated median intraperitoneal lethal dose (LD50) in mice.” Ex. 1007, 548. BOTOX Label emphasizes that the method for performing the assay is specific to BOTOX. Id. “Due to specific details of this assay such as the vehicle, dilution scheme and laboratory protocols for the various mouse LD50 assays,” it warns, units of biological activity of BOTOX “cannot be compared to nor converted into Units of any other botulinum toxin or any toxin assessed with any other specific assay method.” Id.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,731
• Human Power Of N Company v. Heartbeet Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00094 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim had an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, as required for PGR eligibility.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “To institute a post-grant review, we must determine whether the information presented in the Petition, “if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that the ’813 patent is eligible for post-grant review. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’813 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2021). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Petitioner proposes construction of two terms, “inorganic nitrate” and “requiring a reduction in systolic blood pressure.” Pet. 26–27. Of these terms, Patent Owner does not propose a construction for “inorganic nitrate” (Prelim Resp. 7). For purposes of determining whether to institute trial of the challenged claims, we determine it is not necessary to construe “inorganic nitrate.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an AIA proceeding).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed definition is unduly restrictive. The claims do not clarify the meaning of “requiring a reduction in systolic blood pressure”; hence, we rely on relevant disclosures in the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–19. The prosecution history adds no clarity to the meaning of this term. As noted by Patent Owner, the specification states that the claimed method seeks to lower the systolic blood pressure in a subject needing such a reduction “preferably to normal levels (about 140/80 mmHg”) and provides an example of a 43-year-old with hypertension whose “blood pressure was 142/99 on the day when the experiment started.” Prelim. Resp. 8–9. We agree with Patent Owner that these disclosures provide general guidance to the person of ordinary skill in the art that the upper bounds of normal systolic blood pressure is about 140 mmHg, and that a person “requiring a reduction in systolic blood pressure” is someone whose systolic blood pressure exceeds that general measurement. Moreover, as discussed above, Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a medical degree or equivalent study in fields such as “biochemistry, pharmacology, nutrition chemistry, or kinesiology” (Pet. 13) such that the term would have been interpreted by persons with a sophisticated understanding of human physiology according to the facts and circumstances presented and with the guidance of “about 140 mmHg” providing a general measurement guideline. We conclude that the plain and ordinary meaning of a person “requiring a reduction in systolic blood pressure” is a person having higher than about 140 mmHg systolic blood pressure.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” based on an “objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). If this test fails, the application is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,842,813
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2021 · IPR2021-00814 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Juniper’s rehearing request, leaving intact its denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “because the Board was not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for purposes of institution does not mean that we overlooked or misapprehended Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and importantly, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to reargue one’s case or to express disagreement with the Board’s decision.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “But Bruckman’s “trunk link” (or LAG as argued by Petitioner) is explicitly disclosed as a link to a core network, not as the links (or traces 34 on backplane 26) to subsidiary modules 24, as argued by Petitioner: “In network access systems, for example, a backplane may be used to connect a main module, having a trunk link to a core network, to a number of subsidiary modules, such as line cards, with ports serving network users. Ex. 1007, 1:25–30 (emphasis added); see id. at 1:61–2:4 (“The master module comprises a switch, which is typically used for linking the subsidiary modules via the connection lines to a network trunk.” (emphases added)); Dec. 25. Bruckman also explicitly discloses that “[a]t any given time, a number of the connection lines [between main module 22 and subsidiary modules 24, i.e., traces 34] are likely to be idle” (Ex. 1007, 2:2–4), which is contrary to a purpose of a LAG (see Ex. 1001, 2:10–16 (“The [LAG] forwarding entity usually attempts to distribute the load evenly over each physical output port of the aggregated logical link.” (emphasis added))). See Dec. 25–28. Thus, in the Decision, we found neither Petitioner nor its declarant had explained sufficiently, let alone with particularity, why the skilled artisan, but for hindsight, would have understood Bruckman to teach the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, of which the physical links are subject to the Designating Limitations, as recited, for example, in claim 1. Indeed, we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments in its Petition as to the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, and having reviewed the Request, remain unpersuaded. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”).” slip op. at 4

  Nonecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,768,928
• Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2021 · IPR2020-00862 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 9–14, 17, 21, and 22 are unpatentable under §103 over the Golan-based combinations; the Board found the combinations taught the limitations and secondary considerations lacked nexus.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Here, as explained below in Section III.E.2., under either articulation of the level of skill in the art Petitioner has shown the claims would have been obvious. Therefore, we do not need to determine whether knowledge of photography is required for the level of skill in this case. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where a determination of level of skill would not change the result “we find no harm under the circumstances of this case in the Board’s failure to set forth express findings as to the level of skill.”). For the reasons above, we determine, on the full record before us, that the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’332 patent and the asserted prior art. We adopt that level for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner asserts “for the purposes of this proceeding and the analysis presented herein, no claim term requires express construction [and that it] analyzes the claims consistent with ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a POSITA in light of the specification.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not request construction of any claim term. See generally PO Resp. 12 12 Patent Owner proposed a construction for the limitation “no-switching criterion,” as recited in each of the challenged claims in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Patent Owner asserted “no-switching criterion” should be construed as “one more criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Id. at 7. In the Institution Decision, we did not limit “no-switching criterion” to “one more criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Patent Owner did not address claim construction in its Patent Owner Response. See generally PO Resp. Our Scheduling Order states that “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.” Paper 8, 8. Thus, Patent Owner’s proposed construction for the limitation “no-switching criterion” is waived and we do not explicitly We do not discern a dispute between the parties regarding any limitation and we need not expressly construe any limitation to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments, the supporting testimony provided by Dr. Durand, the cited portions of Golan, Martin, and Togo and the other cited evidence and we are persuaded that the proposed combination teaches the limitations recited in independent claim 1 as set forth above. Petitioner’s rationales for combining Golan and Martin and Golan, Martin, and Togo are set forth earlier in this Section, and is determined to be supported by sufficient rational underpinning for at least the reasons set forth above. Patent Owner’s contentions regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness are set forth above and, as discussed, do not weigh in favor of non-obviousness because Patent Owner has not established a nexus between the claimed invention and the cited evidence. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude Petitioner establishes unpatentability of independent claim 1 over Golan and Martin by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates the unpatentability of claim 1 over the combination of Golan, Martin, and Togo by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 55

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments, which are premised on a “physical” or “bodily” incorporation of limitations of one reference into the other. This is not the standard. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Rather than express obviousness as the physical incorporation of a structure from one reference into the structure of another reference, the prior art should be viewed as a combination of teachings from different sources, and the use of those teachings by one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418(the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art). Petitioner contends “Togo’s image-quality-based no-switching criterion teachings apply to the combination regardless of whether a distance between cameras is close or whether optical axes are parallel.” Pet. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1040 ¶ 52). Petitioner seeks only “to incorporate Togo’s teachings of a no-switching criterion based on a specific ‘setting magnification X’ and ‘photography distance Y’ of an object to be imaged.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 15; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 2, 37, 49; Ex. 1003 ¶ 68). Thus, Patent Owner’s argument does not undermine Petitioners showing For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale for combining Golan, Martin, and Togo is supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We are further persuaded that the cited evidence sufficiently supports Dr. Durand’s testimony.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 10,356,332 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,356,332

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.