- Coherus Biosciences Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 9, 2017 · IPR2016-00188 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as obvious over van de Putte and Kempeni because the prior art supplied motivation and a reasonable expectation of success for the claimed dosing regimen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“art as of June 8, 2001—the priority date of the ’135 patent, of which the ’680 patent is a continuation. Petitioner and Dr. Baughman explain that a skilled artisan would possess the skill sets of both a physician treating RA patients and a pharmacokineticist with experience in monoclonal antibodies. Pet. 28; Ex. 1006 ¶ 15; Ex. 1007 ¶ 12, 13. Dr. Baughman describes the ordinarily skilled physician as an M.D. with at least three years of experience treating RA patients, including with one or more anti-TNFα biologic agents. Ex. 1006 ¶ 15; see Pet. 28; Ex. 1007 ¶ 12 (Dr. O’Dell agreeing with Dr. Baughman’s definition of the skilled physician). Dr. Baughman describes the ordinarily skilled pharmacokineticist as having a Ph.D. in pharmacokinetics or a related field, and at least three years of experience with the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of biologic agents, either in industry or academia. Ex. 1006 ¶ 15; see Pet. 27. Patent Owner’s experts Dr. Gibofsky and Dr. Vinks apply Petitioner’s and Dr. Baughman’s description of the ordinary artisan. Ex. 2065 ¶¶ 53–54; Ex. 2069 ¶¶ 101– 103. We adopt that description of the level of ordinary skill in the art, because it is the description that both parties have applied in this proceeding and it is reflected by the prior art of record.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). On the other hand, “a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Id. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Here, the steps of the method, dosage amount, timing, route of administration, and active component are all specified in the body of the claim. The phrase “reducing the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis,” therefore, merely recites an intended use. See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (statements of intended use typically do not limit the scope of a claim because they “usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates”). Stated another way, the claims do not expressly recite any particular level of efficacy, meaningful or otherwise. Rather, the claims require administering the antibody in a particular dosage amount, by a particular route, at a particular interval—to a patient with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“2. “40 mg dosage unit form” According to the ’680 patent, “dosage unit form” “refers to physically discrete units suited as unitary dosages for the mammalian subjects to be treated; each unit containing a predetermined quantity of active compound[.]” Ex. 1001, 23:9–12. Petitioner contends, “[b]ased upon this definition, a ‘40 mg dosage unit’ form would encompass a syringe filled with 40 mg of D2E7.” Pet. 17.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s showing that the prior art discloses each element of claims 1–4. See generally PO Resp. Based on the full trial record, we determine that van de Putte and Kempeni collectively disclose each limitation of the challenged claims. That is, we agree with Petitioner that van de Putte discloses all of the elements of claims 1–4, with the exceptions of biweekly dosing, and administering the antibody in combination with methotrexate. As explained above, van de Putte discloses a study in which RA patients received weekly doses of 20, 40, or 80 mg of D2E7, or placebo, via subcutaneous self-administration over the course of three months. Ex. 1004, 1. D2E7, therefore, was administered in a pharmaceutically acceptable composition, in unit dosage form. Id. Further, D2E7 is a known recombinant human anti-TNFα antibody having the six CDRs and heavy chain constant region required by claims 1–4, and the amino acid sequences for the variable light and variable heavy chain regions required by claims 2 and 4. Ex. 1001, 3:40–42 (explaining that D2E7 is “described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,090,382, incorporated in its entirety herein by reference”); see Ex. 1008, 2:59–67. Petitioner also shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Kempeni accounts for the differences between van de Putte and the recited biweekly dosing frequency required by all of the challenged claims, as well as administering the antibody with methotrexate. Specifically, Kempeni describes a study in which patients received D2E7 via intravenous injection every two weeks for at least 6 months (i.e., 24 weeks), and also teaches that “D2E7 is safe and effective . . . in combination with methotrexate when administered by single and multiple intravenous and subcutaneous injections.” Ex. 1003, 2, 3.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 9,017,680 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,017,680 - Coherus Biosciences Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 16, 2017 · IPR2016-00172 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Kempeni and van de Putte because their combined teachings would have motivated the claimed dosing regimen with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“art as of June 8, 2001—the priority date of the ’135 patent. Petitioner and Dr. Baughman explain that a skilled artisan would possess the skill sets of both a physician treating RA patients and a pharmacokineticist with experience in monoclonal antibodies. Pet. 27; Ex. 1006 ¶ 15. Dr. Baughman describes the ordinarily skilled physician as an M.D. with at least three years of experience treating RA patients, including with one or more anti-TNFα biologic agents. Ex. 1006 ¶ 15; see Pet. 27; Ex. 1007 ¶ 12 (Dr. O’Dell agreeing with Dr. Baughman’s definition of the skilled physician). Dr. Baughman describes the ordinarily skilled pharmacokineticist as having a Ph.D. in pharmacokinetics or a related field, and at least three years of experience with the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of biologic agents, either in industry or academia. Ex. 1006 ¶ 15; see Pet. 27. Patent Owner’s experts Dr. Gibofsky and Dr. Vinks apply Petitioner’s and Dr. Baughman’s description of the ordinary artisan. Ex. 2065 ¶¶ 53–54; Ex. 2069 ¶¶ 101–103. We adopt that description of the level of ordinary skill in the art, because it is the description that both parties have applied in this proceeding and it is reflected by the prior art of record.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for patent owner
“The parties do not dispute our preliminary determination that the preamble phrase “[a] method for treating rheumatoid arthritis” is not limiting. We have reassessed that determination in light of the arguments and evidence adduced at trial, and maintain that determination based on the full record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As we explained in the Institution Decision, claims 1 and 5 do not recite any particular level of efficacy. Rather, they require administering the antibody for a time sufficient to treat RA. Inst. Dec. 9. Consistent with the claims, the specification uses the word “treat” in its customary and ordinary way. For example, the specification describes administering the antibody for therapeutic purposes to alleviate the symptoms and/or progression of the disorder. Ex. 1001, 24:25–60. The portions of the specification on which Patent Owner relies do not persuade us otherwise. The specification explains that the data in Figures 1B and 2–4 “indicate that subcutaneous, biweekly D2E7 treatment combined with methotrexate was significantly better than placebo in reducing the signs and symptoms of RA,” and that all of the doses “were statistically significantly more effective than placebo.” Ex. 1001, 30:25–30. A statement that the treatment is significantly better than placebo, however, does not mean that the treatment significantly reduced the signs and symptoms of RA, as Patent Owner argues.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed
“After reviewing the entire record developed during trial, we find that Petitioner does not carry its burden to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been so motivated. As explained above, Petitioner asserts in the Petition that the ordinary artisan would have doubled van de Putte’s 20 mg dose to 40 mg and weekly dosing interval to biweekly based on the single PK parameter of half-life. In support of that assertion, Dr. Baughman testifies that “half-lives are routinely used to develop the appropriate dosing frequency.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 66. Dr. Baughman’s testimony in that regard may be valid, but the record in this case does not include sufficient evidence from which we can make that determination. That is, 8 Cmax is the highest blood level observed between doses and AUC is the total area under the concentration time curve that reflects the total amount of drug observed in the blood. Ex. 1006 ¶ 62; Ex. 2069 ¶ 35. neither Petitioner nor Dr. Baughman direct us to a drug with a dosing interval that corresponds to its half-life, or to other evidence supporting the assertion that skilled artisans routinely use half-lives to develop a dosing schedule. Accordingly, Dr. Baughman’s testimony on those issues is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 8,889,135 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,889,135 - Duane Brockman v. Wesley BainterInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2017 · DER2016-00002 · APJ Jameson Lee · DER · Institution
The Board denied institution of a derivation proceeding because the petition did not provide substantial evidence that the challenged claims were the same or substantially the same as the invention conceived and communicated.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“required to show (1) that the challenged claims are drawn to the same or substantially the same invention as the invention he disclosed to Respondent, (2) that Petitioner has at least one claim that is the same or substantially the same as the Respondent’s claimed invention, and (3) that Petitioner has at least one claim that is the same or substantially the same as the invention Petitioner disclosed to the Respondent. For these requirements, the Petition contains only a general citation to “Ex. 1003; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1005.” Pet. 7–11. As noted above, Exhibit 1003 is a declaration from Petitioner; Exhibit 1004 is a declaration of Tyler Brockman; and Exhibit 1005 is an affidavit of Scott Sproul. None of the testimony from Petitioner, Tyler Brockman, and Scott Sproul, however, addresses the specifics of any claim. With regard to the first requirement, it cannot simply be assumed that the challenged claims are drawn to the same or substantially the same invention as that which Petitioner has conceived and communicated to Respondent. The Petitioner provides no reasoning or analysis in that regard. Several features in the challenged claims demand a meaningful accounting by Petitioner, relative to the invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent. Challenged claims 1, 2, and 6 are independent and all other challenged claims depend, directly or indirectly, from one of claims 1, 2, and 6. Claim 1 requires an actuator, mounted to an irrigation tower and separate from the anchor member, that has a retracted position and an extended position. According to claim 1, the anchor member is mounted to the actuator. Also according to claim 1, when the actuator is in its retracted position, the anchor member is retracted above the soil surface, and when the actuator is in its extended position, the anchor member penetrates the soil surface. The invention conceived by Petitioner and as communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such actuator. More particularly, lacking from the Petitioner’s conceived and communicated invention is a sufficient disclosure or description of an actuator that, itself, translates between extended and retracted positions, and lacking from the Petition is any reasoning to account for the obviousness of such a feature to one with ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, claim 2 requires a motor, in an actuator, that is slidably mounted to the frame for movement between a retracted position and an extended position. The invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such actuator and motor, and the Petition does not account for such a feature. Claim 6 requires a motor movably mounted to a frame for translation between a retracted position and an extended position, and a control unit that causes both the motor and the anchor member to move from a retracted position to an extended position and from an extended position to a retracted position. The invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such motor and control module, and the Petition does not account for such a feature.” slip op. at 8
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied
“II. Discussion In its Response to the Show Cause Order, Petitioner argues that 35 U.S.C. § 135 does not require a petitioner’s involved application to be maintained after a derivation petition has been filed, that Petitioner’s entire purpose for filing the Petition was for the Board to direct that “the Petitioner be added as a named inventor [in] Respondent[’s] Application,” and that “the Respondent be removed as a named inventor from the Respondent Application.” Paper 6, 1–2. Under the circumstances here, we do not enter adverse judgment against Petitioner for having abandoned the ’929 Application. Hereinafter, we discuss the merits of the Petition for purposes of determining whether a derivation proceeding should be instituted.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“required to show (1) that the challenged claims are drawn to the same or substantially the same invention as the invention he disclosed to Respondent, (2) that Petitioner has at least one claim that is the same or substantially the same as the Respondent’s claimed invention, and (3) that Petitioner has at least one claim that is the same or substantially the same as the invention Petitioner disclosed to the Respondent. For these requirements, the Petition contains only a general citation to “Ex. 1003; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1005.” Pet. 7–11. As noted above, Exhibit 1003 is a declaration from Petitioner; Exhibit 1004 is a declaration of Tyler Brockman; and Exhibit 1005 is an affidavit of Scott Sproul. None of the testimony from Petitioner, Tyler Brockman, and Scott Sproul, however, addresses the specifics of any claim. With regard to the first requirement, it cannot simply be assumed that the challenged claims are drawn to the same or substantially the same invention as that which Petitioner has conceived and communicated to Respondent. The Petitioner provides no reasoning or analysis in that regard. Several features in the challenged claims demand a meaningful accounting by Petitioner, relative to the invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent. Challenged claims 1, 2, and 6 are independent and all other challenged claims depend, directly or indirectly, from one of claims 1, 2, and 6. Claim 1 requires an actuator, mounted to an irrigation tower and separate from the anchor member, that has a retracted position and an extended position. According to claim 1, the anchor member is mounted to the actuator. Also according to claim 1, when the actuator is in its retracted position, the anchor member is retracted above the soil surface, and when the actuator is in its extended position, the anchor member penetrates the soil surface. The invention conceived by Petitioner and as communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such actuator. More particularly, lacking from the Petitioner’s conceived and communicated invention is a sufficient disclosure or description of an actuator that, itself, translates between extended and retracted positions, and lacking from the Petition is any reasoning to account for the obviousness of such a feature to one with ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, claim 2 requires a motor, in an actuator, that is slidably mounted to the frame for movement between a retracted position and an extended position. The invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such actuator and motor, and the Petition does not account for such a feature.” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 9,215,847 - PTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2016-00999 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution for claims 1–28 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that steered planar-array beams are necessarily asymmetrical.
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 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 request must identify, with specificity, all matters that the moving party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Section 42.71(d) further provides that the request must identify where each matter was previously addressed.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Lastly, Petitioner contends the Decision overlooked or “misapprehended the facts showing that all steered planar array antennas inherently result in radiation patterns having at least one asymmetrical beam.” Req. 13–15. According to Petitioner, Figure 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,929,823 (Exhibit 2010) and Figure 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,198,434 (Exhibit 2011), relied upon in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response as describing remedies for distortion effects due to asymmetrical beams (Prelim. Resp. 47–48), do not eliminate the inherent asymmetry of the main beam. Req. 14. However, our Decision relies on Paragraphs 151 to 156 of Mr. Cosgrove’s testimony (Ex. 2001), which cite additional sections of Exhibits 2010 and 2011, to determine that the steered beams of a planar array are not necessarily asymmetrical. Dec. 21–23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 151–156). For example, Mr. Cosgrove addresses the asymmetric bulge shown in Figure 4 of Exhibit 2010 by citing to a description of Figure 6, which describes a lobe symmetry of main lobe 610 that presents a more slender beam mid-section than that of main lobe 410 of Figure 4. Ex. 2001 ¶ 152 (citing Ex. 2010, 7:65–8:6). Mr. Cosgrove also addresses the asymmetric bulge shown in Figure 3 of Exhibit 2011 by citing to a description of Figure 6, which describes main lobe 610 as substantially symmetric, and more suited than lobe 310 of Figure 3 to provide communications within a defined subsection of an area to be served. Ex. 2001 ¶ 156 (citing Ex. 2011, 10:13–16). Accordingly, the Decision did not misapprehend or overlook any arguments or evidence presented by Petitioner. We did not abuse our discretion in determining that the Petitioner did not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that a steered beam of a planar array is necessarily asymmetrical.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 8,311,582 - Apple Inc. v. Fastvdo LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2016-01203 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied FastVDO’s rehearing request, leaving institution of review of claims 7–11 and 22–26 in place because no overlooked or misapprehended matter was shown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“argue that Petitioner provided a “sole theory” for the claimed “error protection means” based on indefiniteness. Rather, Patent Owner argued generally that “Petitioner does not describe the structure, materials, or acts corresponding to the terms that Petitioner contends are in means-plus-function format.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Because Patent Owner did not present its “sole theory” argument in the Preliminary Response, the Board could not have misapprehended or overlooked this argument. Even considering this argument, we are not persuaded. In our Decision, we disagreed with Petitioner’s indefiniteness arguments, but nonetheless found that the Petition identifies sufficient structure to support constructions of the means-plus-function limitations. Dec. 10–16. Rather than misapprehend or overlook Patent Owner’s arguments, we found that the Specification of the ’482 patent “discloses enough of an algorithm to allow a person of ordinary skill to discern the necessary structure for performing the claimed function of the ‘error protecting means.’” Dec. 12.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 5,850,482 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01801 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30, 31, 33, and 40–46 were not shown unpatentable because Rabinovich required prior client access before replication, and Carter did not cure that limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ratner, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 21–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 20. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. at 21. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“whether to replicate data object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating/migrating object xs only if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, and the ratio can be greater than m only if cnt(s,xs) is greater than zero. PO Resp. 19; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication or migration step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate or migrate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independent of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“30, for use with a computer game (claim 45) and with an interactive computer game accessed by at least two users (claim 46). Ex. 1001, 30:47– 54. In connection with its obviousness contentions, Petitioner makes no separate arguments why Rabinovich teaches or suggests shifting redundantly stored data based upon data transmission parameters between the servers independent of an access of the client. Pet. 45–47; Reply 17–18. Because claims 45 and 46 depend from claim 30, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rabinovich teaches or suggests the limitations in these two dependent claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 30.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS RE40,521 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01020 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests, finding no misapprehension or oversight in its decisions rejecting the challenge to claims 1–20 as obvious.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Section 42.71(d) further provides that the request must identify where each matter was previously addressed.” slip op. at 2
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s second argument is that Petitioner’s theory of the chip select signal generating another logic signal, as presented in its Reply, was an “entirely new rationale.” Req. Reh’g 4–7. We disagree. As noted above, there was no new rationale presented, and we found that Petitioner did not assert a new theory. Petitioner’s Reply was based on the same ground of obviousness, involving the same combination of references (Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly), and proffering the same particular application of the Takeda reference, as set forth in the Petition. Therefore, we determine that we did not misapprehend or overlook the nature of Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 7,881,150 - Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01021 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests, finding no overlooked or misapprehended evidence or arguments in the Final Written Decisions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Section 42.71(d) further provides that the request must identify where each matter was previously addressed.” slip op. at 2
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s second argument is that Petitioner’s theory of the chip select signal generating another logic signal, as presented in its Reply, was an “entirely new rationale.” Req. Reh’g 4–7. We disagree. As noted above, there was no new rationale presented, and we found that Petitioner did not assert a new theory. Petitioner’s Reply was based on the same ground of obviousness, involving the same combination of references (Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly), and proffering the same particular application of the Takeda reference, as set forth in the Petition. Therefore, we determine that we did not misapprehend or overlook the nature of Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 8,081,536 - Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01707 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–13 and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 11, 12, and 16–20 as obvious over Payne, and claims 13 and 15 as obvious over Payne and Ackley.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“guidance in resolving this disagreement. To that end, the relevant portion of independent claim 11 recites “at least one server operative to store one or more of: a) content, b) links to content.” As an initial matter, controlling precedent from our reviewing court instructs us that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings.”); CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of . . . evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Accordingly, on a high level, each of the following express claim terms are presumed to have different meanings: “content”; and, “links to content.”” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We disagree with Patent Owner because Patent Owner’s assertions are misplaced. Most prominently, were O’Neil the only factual support for Patent Owner’s position, it may be persuasive. Petitioner’s proposed modification, however, relies not only on O’Neil, but also on Payne and the Declaration of Dr. Greenspun. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 240, 241; Ex. 1006, 6:9–42, 8:38–53, 9:64–10:1, 5:16–25, and Fig. 5); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 272. In short, we are persuaded that the following findings in Payne asserted by Petitioner are accurate, and that it supports adequately Petitioner’s proposed modification. The system of Payne already includes functionality requiring a user to log on to an account, Ex. 1006 at 6:9–42, 8:38–53, so it would have been trivial to place the log in functionality directly on the digital advertising documents, which are web pages, see id. at 9:64–10:1, 5:16–25, Fig. 5. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 240. When a patent simply arranges old elements, each performing the same function it had been known to perform and together yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Pet. 48; see also Reply 11–16. As counter-evidence, Patent Owner cites to paragraphs 46–48 of the Declaration of Dr. Papakonstantinou. Those paragraphs, however, suffer from the same logical flaw identified above.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Insofar as Patent Owner is asserting that Payne and Ackley are non- analogous art, we disagree. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To that end, Payne discloses that it relates to the field of “user-interactive network sales systems for implementing an open marketplace for goods or services over computer networks such as the Internet.” Ex. 1006, 1:14–17. Ackley discloses that it relates to the field “computer-based systems and methods that enable sales transactions between third parties through a communications network, such as internet auctions and classified systems.” Ex. 1008, 1:21–25. We see little daylight between these two fields, especially given that Ackley’s use of the word “such as” with “internet auctions” indicates that such “internet auctions” are a non-limiting example, and, thus, do not materially limit Ackley’s field of endeavor.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,516,177
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.