- PTAB · Jan 26, 2022 · IPR2020-00870 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution, finding no overlooked or misapprehended facts that changed its Fintiv analysis.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the 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. 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 burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. admitted” in connection with a request for rehearing. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 90 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“CTPG”) (citing Huawei Device Co. v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 at 4 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) (precedential)). Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for patent owner
“the District Court held a hearing regarding venue related issues. Ex. 1044, 6:8–15. During the course of that hearing, the District Court set forth procedures that the parties should follow to address some outstanding venue related issues. Id. at 26:1–10. The District Court also stated that, after the parties followed those procedures and reported back, it would “determine whether [the Court] should leave the current schedule in place or whether [the Court] should enter some kind of a temporary stay to facilitate [additional venue-related discovery].” Id. at 26:11–16. Petitioner argues that this comment by the District Court should tip the Fintiv factor 1 in favor of institution. Reh. Req. 8–9. We disagree. Although the December 20th hearing may indicate the District Court’s willingness to consider whether “some kind of a temporary stay” should be entered to resolve the outstanding venue issues, it provides little, if any, actual evidence that the District Court would, in fact, enter a stay. Even if we were to guess that the District Court would enter a stay, we would still have to speculate further about the length of the “temporary” stay because, if it were for only a few days or weeks, it would still not avoid the concerns of inefficiency and duplicative efforts addressed by Fintiv factor 1. Regarding our alleged failure to apprehend or consider fully Petitioner’s proposed stipulation, we again do not agree. In the Decision, we specifically addressed Petitioner’s proposed stipulation and explained its shortcomings. Dec. 15–16. Although Petitioner clearly does not agree with our analysis, mere disagreement with our opinion is not a valid basis for reconsideration.” slip op. at 10
- Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, grantedAdditional discovery, deniedMixed
“Although Petitioner did bring the District Court’s Orders to our attention in a timely manner, we are not persuaded good cause has been shown to exist for us to consider these Orders. First, the Orders are all from cases that are separate and distinct from the parallel litigation involving the parties before us. Ex. 1040, 1; Ex. 1041, 1; Ex. 1042, 1; Ex. 1043, 1. Second, each Order is limited to cases that are “set for in-person jury trials during December of 2020 and January through February of 2021.” Id. That limitation further diminishes the value of the Orders in this proceeding because the jury trial in the parties’ parallel litigation was scheduled to begin on April 5, 2021 (Ex. 2003, 1). In fact, Petitioner acknowledges that the Orders have “not yet been applied in the underlying litigation.” See Reh. matter to be speculative at best. In the Rehearing Request, Petitioner argues that Exhibits 1040–1043 provide evidence that the parallel litigation may be stayed. Reh. Req. 7. However, in addition to the fact that the Orders in those exhibits do not relate to the parties’ or their parallel litigation, none of the Orders actually stays a case, which diminishes the relevance of the Orders to the first Fintiv factor even further. Petitioner argues additionally that these Orders along with other COVID-related facts demonstrate the uncertainty of the trial date in the parties’ parallel litigation. Nevertheless, Petitioner never argued prior to our Decision that the parallel litigation was uncertain because of COVIDrelated facts. See Pet. 70–71; Pet. Reply 1–5. In other words, Petitioner is not offering this new information to support an argument that was made before the Decision was entered. Petitioner instead offers Exhibits 1040– 1043 to support a new argument introduced for the first time in the Rehearing Request, which is improper and immaterial as to any alleged errors in the Decision. Therefore, we do not find Petitioner has carried its burden of showing good cause exists to justify consideration of those exhibits to evaluate whether we erred by “overlooking or misapprehending” anything in the Decision.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,749,829 - SNF S.A. v. Solenis Technologies, L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 4, 2021 · IPR2020-01730 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and, despite finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 12 and 13, denied institution because most challenged claims did not meet the threshold and review would be inefficient.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be found 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. 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 party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot reached
“Petitioner offers to waive its arguments with respect to invalidity grounds 2 and 3 if we institute inter partes review. Id. This offer makes our exercise of discretion a closer call, but even absent grounds 2 and 3, granting institution would require that we institute on all claims. We have determined that, for a sizeable majority of challenged claims, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Under the circumstances presented here, we determine it would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources to institute review. See Chevron, Paper 9 at 10–11; Deeper, Paper 7. Accordingly, we exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to decline to institute post-grant review.” slip op. at 11
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“reasons discussed herein and in the Decision, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to challenged claims 1–11 and 14–21. However, based on the preliminary record, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 12 and 13 would have been obvious over the cited art. Accordingly, this case presents the question whether we should exercise our discretion to deny institution. Our decision as to whether discretionary denial is warranted is guided by Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative) and Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Both of these cases explain that “the Board may consider the number of claims and grounds that meet the reasonable likelihood standard when deciding whether to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” Chevron, Paper 9 at 10–11; Deeper, Paper 7 at 42. In Chevron, the panel ultimately exercised discretion to deny institution where “Petitioner demonstrate[d], at most, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to two dependent claims out of a total of twenty challenged claims.” Chevron, Paper 9 at 12. Similarly, in Deeper, the panel exercised discretion to deny institution where Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to only two out of twenty three challenged claims. Deeper, Paper 7 at 43.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Mixed
“art – selecting values within the ranges disclosed in the prior art to calculate a ratio – did not support institution because Petitioner never explained how or why it selected any of the specific values it used to calculate the claimed ratio. Dec. 13. We concluded that Petitioner’s second use of the ranges disclosed in the art – optimizing within the disclosed ranges – did not support institution because the prior art did not disclose that the ratio of WAMW to % DADMAC was a result effective variable (id. at 17) and because Petitioner had not shown that independently optimizing WAMW and % DADMAC would lead to copolymer having the claimed ratio (id. at 17–20).” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,644,320 - Meyer Products, LLC v. Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01247 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution on claims 18 under Pruss and Keeler and claims 1, 4–7, and 18 under Coates and Hetrick; other grounds failed the institution threshold.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsMixed
“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As applied here, the Petition must have specified which prior art structures are being relied on in the asserted ground such that “said lift frame, trunnion, A-frame and motion generating device all being attachable to and detachable from a vehicle as one assembly,” as recited by claim 1 and similarly required by claims 4–7 and 18. The Petition did not. slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“back bar and a pair of side bars arranged in a triangular or ‘A’ configuration,” the Board misapprehended or overlooked the fact that the Specification of the ’757 patent does not define the term “A-frame,” that the Specification states that the patent is “limited . . . by the scope of the following claims and their equivalents,” and that the Specification also uses the term “frame” without the prefix “A-” or uses the term preceded by “mount,” “lift,” or “A-”. Request 3–6. Petitioner argues that this misapprehension causes the Board’s construction to be divorced from the Specification and the record evidence. Request 6 (Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). As an initial matter, we note that Petitioner only cited to two portions of the Specification in the Petition in supporting its construction of “A-frame”: Ex. 1001, 4:62–64, 8:36–40. Pet. 8–9. Accordingly, we restrict ourselves to reconsideration of only this portion of the Specification. And upon reconsideration, we determine that the Board did not misapprehend or overlook the aforementioned cited portions of the Specification in construing “A-frame”; instead, the Board considered those portions expressly, but came to a different conclusion. Specifically, as set forth in the Decision, the fact that other shapes may be referred to in the Specification does not broaden the “A” shape of the “A-frame,” as recited in claims 1 and 4–7. The Decision notes Patent Owner’s suggestion that other claims, not at issue, might still allow for use of the invention with another shape for the frame. Decision 7. Petitioner argues that these other claims do not refer to an “A-frame.” Request 6. We agree. This argument is misplaced, however, as the lack of specificity of shape for the corresponding frame in the other claims is fully consistent with the notion that these other frames use a non-A-frame shape. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Decision misapprehended or overlooked any arguments with respect to the asserted ground of anticipation by Pruss.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As applied here, the Petition must have specified which prior art structures are being relied on in the asserted ground such that “said lift frame, trunnion, A-frame and motion generating device all being attachable to and detachable from a vehicle as one assembly,” as recited by claim 1 and similarly required by claims 4–7 and 18. The Petition did not. slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,928,757
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.