- 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 - Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01706 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11, 12, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious over MyLibrary.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In summary, we construe “content” as “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” and excluding “links to content,” but not excluding “content” associated with the “links to content.”5” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (Affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the Specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.’”). For the purposes of this decision, and on this record, we determine that most claim terms do not need express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“7. Conclusion We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11, 12, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious in view of MyLibrary. In addition to findings we make above in connection with our analysis of claims 11, 12, and 16–20 as obvious in view MyLibrary, we also adopt as our findings Petitioner’s positions as to how MyLibrary discloses each of the limitations of claims 11, 12, and 16–20. We further adopt as our own Petitioner’s rationales for modifying MyLibrary, as referenced above.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,516,177 - Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 4, 2017 · IPR2015-01411 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 9–13, 15, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Zhang and Altmejd and over Orenstien and Filippo.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We interpreted “power conversion unit,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, to mean “a system or device that changes power from one form or level to another” in our Decision to Institute. Dec. 5‒6. Patent Owner has not presented any further arguments that would require us to disturb that construction. Accordingly, on this record, we interpret “power conversion unit” to mean “a system or device that changes power from one form or level to another.” See id. 2. “power management unit” Claim 1 recites a “power management unit.” In our Decision to Institute, we interpreted “power management unit” to mean “hardware or software that manages or assists in managing of power.” Id. at 6‒8. Patent Owner does not present any arguments that would require us to disturb that construction. Accordingly, on this record, we interpret “power management unit” to mean “hardware or software that manages or assists in managing of power.” See id..” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“blocks and processor cores, including the vast differences in sizes and structure, communication patterns, timing issues, and redesign of circuitry are not persuasive because they assume a bodily incorporation of Altmejd’s functional units in to Zhang’s processor core system, whereas Petitioner’s rationale to combine is limited to power-management of processor cores of Zhang with the power-management policy taught by Altmejd. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the issue is what the combination of Zhang and Altmejd would have suggested to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Altmejd discloses the adjustment of power to functional units based on usage amounts, and a person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the specifics of Altmejd’s power management policies in to Zhang. Pet. 16‒17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 47). Specifically, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Altmejd’s power management policy to Zhang in order to provide a more granular and efficient power management policy, and, as explained by Mr. Gafford, Altmejd’s power management policy would lead to more cost savings. Id. at 17‒18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 48). Petitioner identifies that this motivation is explicitly disclosed in the Zhang and Altmejd, where Zhang discloses the individual turning off of processor cores “may result in a reduction of the overall power consumed by the processor” (Ex. 1006 ¶ 30), and Altmejd discloses that “it is advantageous from a power savings perspective to reduce the voltage when possible because the power saved is proportional to the square of the voltage reduction, whereas the power savings is linear with respect to frequency reductions” (Ex. 1007, 7:9–13). Pet. 18‒19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 49). Petitioner’s analysis demonstrates that the claimed combination is merely a combination of known elements, for their known use to achieve a predictable result. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that a person with ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to combine the teachings of Zhang and Altmejd because of the difference between functional units and processor cores only. Rather, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the power management policy described by Altmejd in to Zhang’s multi-core processor management system.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations and quotation marks omitted). We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s citations to Orenstien as criticizing an on/off scheme as teaching away from such a scheme. Orenstien’s disclosure of such a scheme’s impact on performance and latency is, at best, a general preference to minimize the use of an on/off scheme. A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily skilled artisan, but does not discredit or discourage investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Orenstien’s characterization is more fully understood as a preference, rather than discouragement or discrediting, because, as argued by Petitioner, Orenstien discloses an embodiment that turns a processor core off. Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1008, 6:6‒46, Fig. 4; Pet. 43; Ex. 1002 ¶ 103).” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We disagree with Patent Owner. Claim 1 recites “a first power conversion unit configured to independently supply a first supply voltage to the first core” and “a second power conversion unit configured to independently supply a second supply voltage to the second core.” Claim 1 further recites “the first supply voltage being controlled based on the information relating to the usage amount of the first core and being controlled independent of the information relating to the usage amount of the second core” and “the second supply voltage being controlled based on the information relating to the usage amount of the second core and being controlled independent of the information relating to the usage amount of the first core.” As such, although we agree with Patent Owner that claim 1 explicitly requires that the voltages supplied to the first and second core are based on usage information of that core, and independent of the usage information of the other core, we agree with Petitioner that claim 1 does not recite the “based only on” language as alleged by Patent Owner. Regardless, we determine that the combination of Zhang and Altmejd discloses the claimed limitations under either construction. See id. As discussed above, Zhang discloses supplying voltages to each core” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,664,971 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,664,971 - Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01409 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4, 8, and 9 are unpatentable under § 103; claim 30 was not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach shutdown based on total processor use below a threshold.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenOther
“III. ANALYSIS A. PRINCIPLES OF LAW Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish the facts supporting its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Public accessibility” is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a “printed publication.” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). A reference is publicly accessible upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We presume a claim term carries its “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We construe only those claim terms necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We decline to disregard all of Mr. Gafford’s testimony. In light of Mr. Gafford’s education and experience (a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering and over 43 years working for corporations in the design, manufacturing, and support for computer systems and microprocessors, see Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 14–20), we see no reason why Mr. Gafford’s frequent participation in other cases—even to ultimately mixed results—makes his testimony here unhelpful in understanding the evidence in this case. See Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). In assessing the merits of this case, we have considered the proffered testimony from Mr. Gafford, as well as Patent Owner’s Declarant Dr. Friedman, and accorded weight based on the testimony’s substantive persuasiveness.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 7,636,863 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,636,863 - Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 12, 2016 · IPR2015-01020 · 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
NonePatents in suitUS 7,881,150 - Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 12, 2016 · IPR2015-01021 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests in IPR2015-01020 and IPR2015-01021, finding no overlooked or misapprehended evidence or arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“106 of the first Jagannathan declaration, filed concurrently with the Petition, he testified, “[t]hus, when a chip-select output from the bank control unit is used to enable a particular DDR SDRAM device, it is also used to enable the bit switch.” Final Dec. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 106) (emphasis added). This described Petitioner’s evidence on the chip select signal, namely, that Dr. Jagannathan did not testify that the chip select signal “is also the bit switch enable signal,” but rather, that the chip select signal “is used to” generate the enable signals to the bit switch. In Petitioner’s post-hearing brief (Paper 30), Petitioner cited to pages 35 and 36 of the Petition, and to Dr. Jagannathan’s deposition testimony: Q. So what I’m trying to understand is, in that paragraph, it seems that you’re saying it’s the same signal that’s being used. A. No, I don’t -- I disagree with that. What I am trying to say here is the chip select signal -- those signals that I talked about earlier in the sentence, they’re effectively being used to generate the enable signals. Paper 30 (citing Ex. 2002, 218:6–17). Petitioner asserted in its post-hearing brief, “[w]hen taken as a whole, in context, Dr. Jagannathan’s testimony supports the rationale in the Petition.” Paper 30, 4. As set forth in the Final Written Decision, we agree. Nothing argued by Patent Owner persuades us that in the Final Written Decision we misapprehended or overlooked the nature of Dr. Jagannathan’s testimony in his first declaration.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,081,536 - Commscope Technologies, LLC v. Communications Components Antenna Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 3, 2016 · IPR2016-00999 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–28 unpatentable, principally because Yea did not establish the claimed asymmetrical coverage areas.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“partes review of claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,582 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’582 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Communications Components Antenna Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that 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); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–28 of the ’582 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute 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
“Petitioner’s proposed construction of this limitation is supported by the specification of the ’582 patent. The ’582 patent discloses replacing a single sector coverage area with sub-sector coverage areas, at least one of which is an asymmetrical coverage area. Ex. 1001, 3:16–18. The ’582 patent discloses that the use of asymmetrical coverage areas permits the total coverage area to closely approximate the symmetrical sector coverage area being replaced, without creating excessively large sub-sector handover zones or introducing sever degradation in network performance. Id. at 3:18–24. The ’582 patent discloses creating the asymmetrical coverage areas by replacing an existing antenna with an antenna that has substantially the same coverage area, but divides the coverage area into a plurality of separate asymmetrical beams or sub-sectors. Id. at 4:32–38. As disclosed by the ’582 patent, the replacement antenna produces a plurality of separate beams, each defining a new sub-sector with only a small overlapping area between them and which together provide substantially identical coverage to the sector supported by the original antenna, to upgrade the single sector to a plurality of sub-sectors without significantly affecting neighboring sites. Id. at 4:51–57. The replacement antenna introduces asymmetry into the generated beam pattern. Id. at 4:58–60. The introduction of asymmetrical beams by the replacement antenna allows close approximation of the coverage area of the conventional sector antenna being replaced. Id. at 5:61–64. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a plurality of sub-sector coverage areas extending therefrom, at least one of which is asymmetrical,” as a plurality of replacement sub-sector beams, at least one of which has an asymmetrical shape, where asymmetry includes deliberate or inherent asymmetry as the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“49 (Fed. Cir. 2005). There, the district court invalidated claims of the patent in suit on summary judgment based on the measured dimensions of a prior art patent figure. Id. at 1148. The Federal Circuit reversed, warning “that arguments based on drawings not explicitly made to scale in issued patents are unavailing.” Id. at 1149. Petitioner here does not identify any portion of Yea disclosing that Figures 4 and 8 are drawn accurately enough to determine an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Petitioner also fails to cite to any disclosure in Yea that identifies or describes an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Furthermore, Petitioner also has not explained why the shapes shown in the linear scale drawings of Figure 4 would show similar shapes when converted to a logarithmic scale. Additionally, Petitioner does not explain why the carrier to interference ratio shown in Figure 8 can be used to accurately measure antenna radiation beam patterns. We find Petitioner does not sufficiently establish that the plots shown in Figures 4 and 8 of Yea can be used to determine whether the antenna radiation beam pattern is asymmetrical. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that Yea anticipates independent claims 1, 13, and 20. b. Dependent Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27 Petitioner argues that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27. Pet. 47–53. In so arguing, Petitioner relies on Yea as disclosing the claimed asymmetrical coverage area. Id. Because we are not persuaded that Yea discloses this limitation, we are not persuaded that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“as well as testimony of both Mr. Collins and Mr. Cosgrove. Under Rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, any genuine issues of material fact created by the testimonial evidence should be viewed in light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. Even reviewing the testimony of Mr. Collins in the light most favorable to Petitioner, we determine Petitioner has established only that asymmetrical beams may be used in a planar array antenna, but not that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Mr. Collins cites to Litva (Ex. 1009) and Wästberg (Ex. 1018) in stating that prior art steered beams of a planar array antenna can be asymmetrical beams. Ex. 1024 ¶ 179. We credit Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Mr. Cosgrove to determine Petitioner does not sufficiently establish the likelihood that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Further, Petitioner fails to set forth a sufficient rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would use the asymmetrical beams of the prior art with the disclosure of Yea. Pet. 39–40. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that using asymmetrical beams in Yea would have been obvious. We therefore conclude that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11–15, 18–22, 24, and 27 would have been obvious over Yea, Metawave Website, Litva, and Wästberg.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,311,582 - Vista Outdoor Operations LLC v. Liberty Ammunition, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 31, 2016 · IPR2016-00539 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place the denial of institution for claims 1–42 on all six grounds, finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. Furthermore, when rehearing a decision on a motion, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. Id. at § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Board found that these embodiments were distinct, and determined that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenges when combining features from these distinct embodiments. See Decision 13–16, 19, 20. With respect to the anticipation ground (Ground 1), the Board explained that “it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 13 (citing Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). With respect to Grounds 2 and 3, the Board determined that Petitioner failed to explain adequately how Woodring’s distinct embodiments are being combined with one another and the cited art to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at 18, 20.” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The Board found that these embodiments were distinct, and determined that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenges when combining features from these distinct embodiments. See Decision 13–16, 19, 20. With respect to the anticipation ground (Ground 1), the Board explained that “it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 13 (citing Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). With respect to Grounds 2 and 3, the Board determined that Petitioner failed to explain adequately how Woodring’s distinct embodiments are being combined with one another and the cited art to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at 18, 20.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“determined that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenges when combining features from these distinct embodiments. See Decision 13–16, 19, 20. With respect to the anticipation ground (Ground 1), the Board explained that “it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 13 (citing Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). With respect to Grounds 2 and 3, the Board determined that Petitioner failed to explain adequately how Woodring’s distinct embodiments are being combined with one another and the cited art to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at 18, 20.” slip op. at 4
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,748,325 - Coalition For Affordable Drugs Vi, LLC v. Celgene CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 26, 2016 · IPR2015-01096 · APJ Michael P Tierney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over Thalomid PI in view of Cunningham, Keravich, Zeldis, and Mundt.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownPetitioner expert creditedOther
“representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prior art references, like the ’720 patent specification, focus on controlling the distribution of a drug. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:13–16 (describing “the distribution to patients of drugs, particularly teratogenic drugs, in ways wherein such distribution can be carefully monitored and controlled”); see generally Exs. 1003, 1006, 1009, 1012, 1018. Consistent with the prior art, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Fudin, testifies that the types of problems encountered by one of ordinary skill in the art included creating a restricted drug distribution program to prevent adverse side effects, such as teratogenic risks. Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 44–50. Accordingly, the prior art demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have experience in controlling the distribution of a drug. To the extent a more specific definition is required, we hold, for the reasons provided below, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have several years of experience in risk management relating to pharmaceutical drug products, which encompasses experience as a pharmacist.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“prescription approval code is not provided unless certain conditions are met. Ex. 1001, 13:42–52. The conditions include the prescriber, pharmacy, patient, patient’s risk group and the patient’s informed consent have been properly registered in the storage medium. Id. Specifically, the ’720 patent specification describes “approval code” as follows: In certain embodiments of the invention, the methods may require that the registered pharmacy consult the computer readable medium to retrieve a prescription approval code before dispensing the drug to the patient. This approval code is preferably not provided unless the prescriber, the pharmacy, the patient, the patient’s risk group and the patient’s informed consent have been properly registered in the storage medium. Additionally, depending upon the risk group assignment, generation of the prescription approval code may further require the registration in the storage medium of the additional set of information, including periodic surveys and the results of diagnostic tests, as have been defined as being relevant to the risk group assignment. Id. The specification also states that if a patient’s risk group assignment so indicates, a prescription approval code “generally” will not be generated until specific periodic diagnostic tests have been performed and satisfactory results entered into the storage medium. Id. at 14:37–15:6. As apparent from the specification, the prescription approval code is “preferably” or “generally” not provided unless certain information is properly registered in a storage medium. An affirmative risk assessment, however, is not mentioned in the specification as a mandatory requirement for generation of the prescription approval code.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“for close constant monitoring to identify noncompliance or other problems, but concluded by stating that Celgene was committed to making the program succeed and would be willing to make any modifications to the program necessary to ensure its effectiveness. Ex. 1012 at 329. This willingness to make any modifications is consistent with the understanding that the underlying drug remains a safety concern because controlling the distribution of the drug does not negate the actual side effects of the underlying drug. In dealing with such drugs, such as those capable of causing severe birth defects, the highest level of safety is desired. Under such circumstances, consistent with the teachings of Zeldis and the art of record one skilled in the art would understand that where significant safety risks exist with a drug, one would continuously search for safer ways to control the distribution of the drug. Put simply, where significant safety concerns exists, one of ordinary skill in the art would not wait until an accident occurred to seek out improvements.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 28, with the exception of the generation of a prescription approval code to be retrieved by a pharmacy before the prescription is filled. Pet. 52. Petitioner states that one skilled in the art, following the teachings of Thalomid PI and seeking to avoid treating pregnant women with thalidomide, would have implemented the methods disclosed in Cunningham to limit dispensation of a drug associated with adverse effects to certain risk groups. Id. at 54. We understand Petitioner as contending that the challenged claims represent a combination of known prior art elements (identifying patient risk groups, collecting patient information relating to the risk, determining whether the risk is acceptable, and controlling dispensation of the drug using both a prescription and an approval code) for their known purpose (control distribution of drug) to achieve a predictable result (avoid giving patients drugs that have an unacceptable risk of side effects). For the reasons provided below, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are obvious over the cited prior art.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 6,315,720 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,315,720 - Coalition For Affordable Drugs Vi, LLC v. Celgene CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 26, 2016 · IPR2015-01103 · APJ Michael P Tierney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over Mitchell and Dishman in view of Cunningham and the additional cited references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prior art references, like the ’720 patent specification, focus on controlling the distribution of a drug. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:13–16 (describing “the distribution to patients of drugs, particularly teratogenic drugs, in ways wherein such distribution can be carefully monitored and controlled”); see generally Exs. 1003; 1008; 1011; 2062; 2067. Consistent with the prior art, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Fudin, testifies that the types of problems encountered by one of ordinary skill in the art included creating a restricted drug distribution program to prevent adverse side effects, such as teratogenic risks. Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 43–50. Accordingly, the prior art demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have experience in controlling the distribution of a drug. To the extent a more specific definition is required, we hold, for the reasons provided below, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have several years of experience in risk management relating to pharmaceutical drug products, which encompasses experience as a pharmacist.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Generally, Petitioner states that the claim terms are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meaning that they would have to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. at 10. Petitioner proposes constructions for several claim terms including “consulted,” “teratogenic effect,” and “adverse side effect.” Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner does not propose distinct constructions of the identified terms. We determine that the identified claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art, and need not be construed explicitly at this time for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“prescription approval code is not provided unless certain conditions are met. Ex. 1001, 13:42–52. The conditions include the prescriber, pharmacy, patient, patient’s risk group and the patient’s informed consent have been properly registered in the storage medium. Id. Specifically, the ’720 patent specification describes “approval code” as follows: In certain embodiments of the invention, the methods may require that the registered pharmacy consult the computer readable medium to retrieve a prescription approval code before dispensing the drug to the patient. This approval code is preferably not provided unless the prescriber, the pharmacy, the patient, the patient’s risk group and the patient’s informed consent have been properly registered in the storage medium. Additionally, depending upon the risk group assignment, generation of the prescription approval code may further require the registration in the storage medium of the additional set of information, including periodic surveys and the results of diagnostic tests, as have been defined as being relevant to the risk group assignment. Id. The specification also states that if a patient’s risk group assignment so indicates, a prescription approval code “generally” will not be generated until specific periodic diagnostic tests have been performed and satisfactory results entered into the storage medium. Id. at 14:37–15:6. As apparent from the specification, the prescription approval code is “preferably” or “generally” not provided unless certain information is properly registered in a storage medium. An affirmative risk assessment, however, is not mentioned in the specification as a mandatory requirement for generation of the prescription approval code.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 6,315,720 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,315,720
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.