- Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 29, 2016 · IPR2015-00973 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and again denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Hendel disclosed the claimed access result.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify 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 meritsInstitution denied
“being forwarded (restriction) or that an output port is selected and altered. Rather, these citations generally state that priority can be given to certain packets and quality of service can be applied to layer 2 routing. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s citation to quality of service in general discloses “generating an access result in response to said at least one selected match.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“rehearing, we determine that the phrase “modifications on the intended destination address to which a packet is to be transmitted” introduces uncertainly into the construction.4 The construction in the Decision appears to conflate the “destination” of a packet with the output interface to which a packet is directed. The Specification does not describe, however, modifying the “destination” of the packet; the only “modification” on how the packet is routed specifically described in the Specification is when “the access control element 120 . . . [alters] the output interface, which was selected by the routing element 110, to another selected output interface.” Ex. 1001, 6:13– 4 Petitioner does not seek rehearing of the claim construction (Reh’g Req. 4, n. 1) but our analysis requires that we revisit the claim construction determination from the Decision. 16; Reh’g Req. 4–5. Thus, we modify our construction of “access control” to mean only restrictions on the transmission of a packet or alteration of a selected output interface for the packet.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Additionally, Petitioner cites to its Declarant Dr. Chao. Reh’g Req. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Petitioner’s Declarant states without citation that “a switch may modify the forwarding decision to account for network policies such as quality of service determinations. That is, a packet may be destined for a certain MAC address and port on the switch, but the switch may determine that the packet can be transmitted more reliably through another port, and so it will change the destination port for that packet.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 31. Petitioner’s Declarant’s testimony is conclusory and unsupported by evidence, and, therefore, we give that testimony no weight.” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 6,377,577 - Snap-On Inc. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 25, 2016 · IPR2015-01244 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place institution on claims 1–6 and 8–19 for obviousness over Fohr, Sato, and Hallaj.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS We review our decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). Petitioner bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, by specifically identifying all matters Petitioner “believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” Id. at § 42.71(d). The central argument presented in the rehearing request is that the Board misapprehended or overlooked the broadest reasonable interpretation of the average discharge current limitation, which appears in each of the independent claims of the ’510 patent. Ex. 1005, claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 14–16,” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure of the patent. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Each argument presented in the request for rehearing depends upon a contention that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the average discharge current limitation includes “currents approaching infinity.” Rehearing Req. 10. We did not overlook or misapprehend that contention. Dec. 13 (treating Petitioner’s view that claim 1 recites “an open-ended average battery pack discharge current range from 20 amps up to infinity”) (quoting Pet. 20). We considered and rejected it based on the information presented. Id. at 13–16.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,999,510 - Snap-On Inc. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 25, 2016 · IPR2015-01242 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Snap-On’s rehearing request, leaving review instituted on claims 1–8 and 10–11 over Fohr, Sato, and Hallaj; it found no error in declining the Johnson anticipation ground.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS We review our decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). Petitioner bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, by specifically identifying all matters Petitioner “believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” Id. at § 42.71(d). The central argument presented in the rehearing request is that the Board misapprehended or overlooked the broadest reasonable interpretation of the average discharge current limitation of claim 1, highlighted below:” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure of the patent. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Each argument presented in the request for rehearing depends upon a contention that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the average discharge current limitation includes “currents approaching infinity.” Rehearing Req. 10. We did not overlook or misapprehend that contention. Dec. 13 (treating Petitioner’s view that claim 1 recites “an open-ended average battery pack discharge current range from 20 amps up to infinity”) (quoting Pet. 20). We considered and rejected it based on the information presented. Id. at 13–14.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,554,290 - PTAB · Mar 10, 2015 · IPR2014-01249 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution in place on the previously instituted claims and grounds; it rejected the challenges to denying claims 8–14 on Grounds 1 and 3 and other proposed grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In a request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Upon a request for rehearing, the decision on a petition will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s assertion, and reading of the rules and statute. The appropriate rule, 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), is not to be read in isolation, but also in conjunction with other Board rules, including 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), which requires the rules to be interpreted for securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. Requiring identification of the means, and sufficient means, avoids institution of a trial where the scope of the means-plus-function claims cannot be determined with precision. The trial potentially would be delayed and ultimately potentially incapable of decision on the merits of the grounds. Consequently, the panel has the discretion to determine if the trial might stray into grounds outside of the statutory authority provided for inter partes review proceedings.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDecided for patent owner
“First, it is a long-standing part of jurisprudence that the tribunal has discretion in the conduct of its proceedings. The language of § 314 provides us with discretion in that it expressly states that review “may not” be authorized in certain situations, but it does not require that a review “shall” be instituted in any situation. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In addition, we direct Petitioner’s attention to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), which provides our rules are to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” Board trial rule 108 provides that the Board may “deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b). Petitioner’s position does not consider that the Board is charged with securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Trials are no exception; 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c) requires us to administer proceedings such that the final written determination in an inter partes review be issued one year after the date of institution, except that the review may be extended by not more than six months for good cause shown. Our decision to proceed on a streamlined grouping of grounds, as opposed to all eleven, yet encompassing all claims, is a meaningful exercise of that discretion in administering the proceeding. Thus, we are not persuaded of error or an abuse of discretion in our decision not to institute those additional grounds.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelNot reached
“The question of estoppel is premature at this point. Petitioner has not established the underlying conditions precedent with any persuasive evidence or argument that the Petitioner will be estopped ultimately. Presently, the trial is moving forward on all claims with the Petitioner having carried the initial burden on institution. Moreover, estoppel is but one of the many issues to be considered in litigation strategy, and we do not presume to make one factor so heavily weighted so as intrude into the province of counsel in making decisions as to how to proceed.” slip op. at 6
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,362,850
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.