• Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. California Institute Of TechnologyRehearing denied
  PTAB · May 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01178 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Bio-Rad’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the petition relied on Saxonov material not shown to be prior art and could not be supplemented on rehearing.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Such an approach is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s statements that in an inter partes review, “the petitioner is master of its complaint,” and “the petition [is] the centerpiece of the proceeding.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 363, 369 (2020). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). In contravention of these principles, Petitioner’s approach improperly shifts the onus to Patent Owner or the Board to identify and parse out erroneous, and purportedly non-essential, citations to Saxonov and piece together an argument based on the remaining citations. As we stated in the Decision, we decline to assume this task. See Dec. 20. Finally, in the Request, Petitioner attempts to “show[] how Ground 6 is fully supported by undisputed prior art material.” Req. 6. This attempt is improper. Petitioner cannot use the Request as a means to supplement the Petition to identify purportedly essential citations and disavow erroneous or non-essential citations.” slip op. at 6

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

    “In the Decision, we determined that Petitioner had not shown that all of the portions of Saxonov that Petitioner relied on in its unpatentability arguments qualify as prior art to the challenged claims. See Dec. 17–24. On this basis, we found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’170 patent.” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 10,770,170
• Cargill, Incorporated v. Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01360 · APJ Debra L Dennett · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Cargill’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1, 6–9, and 11–24 because the petition did not show a reason to combine the selected prior-art data without hindsight.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Upon request for rehearing, we assess a decision on institution “for an abuse of discretion” (37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2020)), which occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law,” “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 burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2020). 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. Id. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence. We have reviewed Petitioner’s Rehearing Request and carefully considered all the arguments presented. For the following reasons, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 2

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

    “As discussed in the Decision, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). No matter the result of combining the allegedly “readily available and well-known” information taken from particular examples from the “documentary evidence” with Petrauskaite’s disclosure, a POSITA had to have been motivated to do so at the time the invention was made.1 What is missing from the Petition is the “why.” The only motivating force in this case appears to be hindsight spurring Petitioner on to choose particular examples of palm stearin disclosed in Deffense and the soybean oil in Neff in order to justify its assertion that Petrauskaite discloses the claimed wt% ranges of triglyceride classes.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). No matter the result of combining the allegedly “readily available and well-known” information taken from particular examples from the “documentary evidence” with Petrauskaite’s disclosure, a POSITA had to have been motivated to do so at the time the invention was made.1 What is missing from the Petition is the “why.” The only motivating force in this case appears to be hindsight spurring Petitioner on to choose particular examples of palm stearin disclosed in Deffense and the soybean oil in Neff in order to justify its assertion that Petrauskaite discloses the claimed wt% ranges of triglyceride classes.” slip op. at 4

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s. We find no instance in the Petition in which “motivation” and “iodine value” are discussed together or linked in any way. The same can be said of Dr. Marangoni’s declaration. And, as noted in the Decision, it was not until the Preliminary Reply that Petitioner argued that specific data on fatty acid wt% used for the conversion calculations were selected to represent “knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art” due to similarity of the iodine value (“IV”) of the palm stearin (and soybean oil) disclosed in Petrauskaite. See Prelim. Reply 2–3. New evidence or argument in the Preliminary Reply that could have presented earlier is not permitted. On this record, we find Petitioner relies its Rehearing Request on arguments about a motivation to combine, stemming from the significance of iodine values, that were not raised in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to support that the Decision misapprehended or overlooked arguments in the Petition about the significance of iodine values.” slip op. at 8

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,645,473
• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00095 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied AliveCor’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution because the Petterson–Nakada combinations did not teach or suggest the claimed replacement of one user interface with another.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the 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 substantial evidence does not support a factual finding, 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); see also Reh’g Req. 8 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)). Also, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) sets forth, in relevant part that: 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, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Our determinations regarding Nakada did not support Petitioner’s argument that Nakada’s “system is returned to the beginning state of the routine, which in the case of Petterson would be FIG. 2B.” Pet. 71; Dec. 39–40. We also stated that “the proposed combination does not address adequately Nakada’s description of powering down its display.” Id. at 40 (citing Pet. 48–50; Prelim. Resp. 25–26; Ex. 1011, Fig. 4). We, thus, determined Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that either Petterson or Nakada teaches or suggests “replacing display of the second user interface with the first user interface.” Dec. 38–41 (citing Pet. 48–50, 68–69, 70–71; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 379, 382; Ex. 1011, Fig. 4). The “totality of the combination” lacked replacing a user interface with any other user interface. Dec. 40–41 (determining “the asserted references neither individually nor combined as proposed would have, ‘in response to detecting that the first criteria are no longer met for a second period of time that is longer than the first period of time, replac[ed] display of the second user interface with the first user interface’”); Reh’g Req. 8 (arguing “the Board overlooked the totality of the combination and Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence regarding the modification of Petterson that would have been obvious . . . in view of Nakada”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “After considering the arguments and cited evidence of the Petition, we determined that Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’533 patent. Paper 7 (“Decision” or “Dec.”). Petitioner subsequently filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 8 (“Reh’g Req.”). For the reasons stated below, Petitioner has not shown that we abused our discretion in denying the Petition, and thus, Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 2

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,568,533
• Energysource Minerals, LLC v. Terralithium LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2021 · IPR2019-01603 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied EnergySource’s rehearing request, finding no overlooked or misapprehended arguments or evidence that warranted changing the final written decision on claims 1–18.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters that the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In that regard, Petitioner contends that Christopher’s “aging process resulted in a reduction in ‘at least one elemental component’ (i.e., silica).” Pet. Reply 5–6 (emphasis added). However, this is not buttressed with any evidence. Petitioner has not presented any evidence showing Christopher’s “aging” process reduces “the concentration of at least one … elemental component” to support its contention that Christopher’s brine of Table 1 is a “treated” brine as claimed. Accordingly, on this record, Petitioner has not shown that the “treated” brine of the claims reads on Christopher’s “aged” brine by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 5

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

    “The Petition discusses Grounds I and II on pages 27–30 of the Petition. Ground I challenges the patentability of claims 1–20 as anticipated by Christopher and Ground II challenges the patentability of claims 1–20 as anticipated and/or obvious over Christopher. Reading pages 27–30 it is plainly evident that it is focused on making the case that Christopher discloses all that is claimed. It is devoid of any reasoning with respect to the obviousness of the claims over Christopher. The Graham factors are not addressed. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The differences between the claimed invention and Christopher are not identified and no rationale as to why one of ordinary skill would have been led to modify Christopher to reach the claimed subject matter is provided. Rather, the entire discussion goes to explaining why, in fact, Christopher discloses all that is claimed. The Board was consistent with that position. Petitioner cites page 12–14 of the Reply as evidence that an obviousness challenge was presented. We disagree. The Reply does not add anything significant to the obviousness challenge presented in the Petition. The Reply is likewise devoid of any reasoning with respect to the obviousness of the claims over Christopher. It repeats that “Christopher teaches using air oxidation and pH modification to selectively precipitate silica, iron, and other heavy metals from a Salton Sea geothermal brine” (Reply 13, emphasis added), where “a POSITA could readily ‘tune’ these parameters to produce the desired results if such were not obtained immediately.” Id. The Board addressed that argument. See Dec. 17.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Petitioner cites footnote 3 [sic. 1] in the Petition but it merely states “mg/kg=(g/L*1000)/1.18kg/L due to the density of Salton Sea geothermal brines.” There is no evidence cited to support it. Petitioner cites “Reply, 3; Ex. 2025, 337:5-9” and “337:5-13” (Req. 6) but the Reply does not cite to those lines in Dr. Gallup’s Declaration. See Pet. Reply 3 (“Ex. 2025, 336:3-5-337:2”). We were unable to locate these lines of testimony in the Reply. The Board could not have misapprehended or overlooked evidence demonstrating Petitioner’s 1.18 kg/L density that was not before it.” slip op. at 11

  § 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,644,126
• Energysource Minerals, LLC v. Terralithium LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2021 · IPR2019-01602 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied EnergySource Minerals’ rehearing request, leaving undisturbed the final written decision that claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters that the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 3

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “to ppm by weight” (Req. 8) was not before us, therefore, we could not have overlooked it. Nevertheless, even if we take account of this new argument, the discussion on page 4 of the Reply does not support Petitioner’s position that one ordinary skill in the art reading Christopher would have no other choice but to understand “1.0” “PPM” (Ex. 1006, 42) to mean parts–per– weight. This is so because Petitioner concedes that “ppm can generally be reported as either by weight or by volume.” Req. 8. This is consistent with Dr. Gallup’s testimony. See Dec. 18: According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Gallup explained [that] ppm may be reported as ppm by weight or ppm by volume. (Ex. 2025, 119:16-25; Ex. 2002, ¶64).” Id. [PO Resp. 20] Because we are directed to no evidence contradicting it, we credit Dr. Gallup’s testimony that ppm can be reported by weight or by volume. Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art reading that iron is at a concentration of “1.0 ppm” for stream 3 in Figure 20 may understand it to refer to ppm by volume. Notwithstanding the discussion on page 4 of the Reply that the “general convention” for ppm is that it is weight based, the evidence before us showed, as Petitioner concedes, that ppm can “generally be reported” (Req. 8) by weight or volume. Thus, as we determined, it is possible that one of ordinary skill in the art may understand “ppm” in Figure 20 to “refer to ppm by volume” (Dec. 18).” slip op. at 12

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that “[d]uring these proceedings, Petitioner has submitted that when Christopher reduces silica, it necessarily also reduces the elemental components of silicon (Si) and oxygen (O2)” (Req. Sur–Reply 1), this is not a position that Petitioner had previously taken. Rather, Petitioner’s position was only that “Christopher states the silica concentration is reduced.” Pet. 23; cf. Pet. Reply 8–9. A rehearing request is not an opportunity to raise new arguments. We could not have overlooked or misapprehended an argument not raised prior to our decision.” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “brine (Pet. 22; Dec. 7), Petitioner had to show that “the brine of Table 1 must ‘have been processed such that the concentration of at least one metal or elemental component has been reduced in the brine.’ Ex. 1001, 7:18–21.” Dec. 9 (emphasis added). As noted in our Decision: In that regard, Petitioner contends that Christopher’s “aging process resulted in a reduction in ‘at least one elemental component’ (i.e., silica).” Pet. Reply 6 (emphasis added). However, this is not buttressed with any evidence. Petitioner has not presented any evidence showing Christopher’s “aging” process reduces “the concentration of at least one … elemental component” to support its contention that Christopher’s brine of Table 1 is a “treated” brine as claimed. Accordingly, on this record, Petitioner has not shown that the “treated” brine of the claims reads on Christopher’s “aged” brine by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 5

  None
  Patents in suitUS 9,650,555
• Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jun 24, 2021 · IPR2021-00013 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, finding its new arguments untimely and unpersuasive as to the aerosol outlet limitation for claims 1–19.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in a petition. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked matters or arguments that were not asserted in the Petition. We deny the Rehearing Request because it is based on new arguments that Petitioner did not present in the Petition. B. Petitioner’s Arguments Are Unpersuasive Alternatively, even if we consider the new arguments raised for the first time in the Rehearing Request, we find none persuasive to show reversible error in the Decision. The ’767 patent describes and claims “a cap assembly” that is characterized by three distinct structures, namely, “a cap, a venturi insert, and a base attached together without welds or separate fasteners to define . . . an air outlet chamber” that is “partitioned from the interior of the receptacle by the base.” Ex. 1001, 15:6–13 (claim 1) (emphasis added); see id. at 3:30–43, 9:45–62 (written description).” slip op. at 6

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

    “The Petition advances three grounds, each of which is based on obviousness and asserts Benalikhoudja1 as a prior art reference. Pet. 5. We found in the Decision, and Petitioner does not dispute in the Rehearing Request, that each ground “depends on Petitioner’s assertion that Benalikhoudja discloses or suggests ‘an aerosol outlet chamber partitioned 1 We refer to US 2006/0237090 A1, published Oct. 26, 2006 (Ex. 1004). from the interior of the receptacle by the base.’” Dec. 5–6. As we did in the Decision, we refer herein to that feature of the claimed invention as “the aerosol outlet limitation.” Id. at 6. Based on the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determined Petitioner did not show sufficiently, for purposes of trial institution, that Benalikhoudja discloses the aerosol outlet limitation. Id. at 9–10. Petitioner argues we erred on that point. Req. Reh’g 1–6.” slip op. at 3

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,767
• Metall Zug AG / Haag-Streit AG et al. v. Carl Zeiss Meditec AGRehearing denied
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2021 · IPR2020-01074 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the follow-on petition under General Plastic.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “When resolving a rehearing request, the Board reviews a decision on institution “for an abuse of discretion” (37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2019)), which occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law,” “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). Applying that standard, we deny the Rehearing Request.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for patent owner

    “Accordingly, the Board found, “Standing alone, the sheer number of petitions (five), taken together with Petitioner’s unexplained and significant delay in filing the four follow-on petitions, supports an exercise of our discretionary denial powers.” Dec. 4. The Board supported that finding by an analysis of the factors that bear on the discretionary denial inquiry as set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential) (“General Plastic”). Dec. 4–10 (applying the General Plastic factors).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,690,330
• Atlas Copco Tools And Assembly Systems LLC v. Wildcat Licensing Wi LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00892 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Wildcat Licensing WI LLC’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion or overlooked matter in granting institution of the challenges.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the 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 substantial evidence does not support a factual finding, 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). Also, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) sets forth, in relevant part that: 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” slip op. at 2

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

    “As we determined in the Decision, Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims in its challenges based on IBM. Petitioner argued that “IBM’s ‘[H]all effect sensor’ indicates tool ‘TORQUE’ to IBM’s controller 6 so that IBM’s controller requires IBM’s tool to achieve the ‘set torque’ at each fastening location in the ‘correct process sequence.’” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003, 81– 82). Petitioner also argued that IBM teaches that an operator “must also wait for the set torque to be achieved on each screw before moving onto the next screw.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1003, 82) (emphases added). Petitioner’s declarant opined that “IBM’s microcontroller 6 measures the applied torque with ‘a [H]all effect sensor.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 111 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82). Petitioner’s arguments and declarant testimony found support in the preliminary record. As quoted in the Decision, IBM itself states that “controller circuit 6 . . . sense[s] when correct torque is achieved by linking As discussed in the Decision, IBM also states that that “[t]he problem is to ensure that four screws 5 fixing two product parts 3 & 4 together are tightened to a specific torque in a specific sequence.” Dec. 19–20 (quoting from Ex. 1003, 82) (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53 (asserting what IBM teaches). Also, the only figure of IBM shows “TORQUE” being sent to controller circuit 6. Ex. 1003, 81; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 108 (“IBM diagrammatically illustrates the tool’s sensed ‘TORQUE’ as a signal input being received by IBM’s microcontroller 6 from the torque-sensing ‘[H]all effect sensor in the driver 11’ ([Ex. 1003] p. 82).”). Thus, Petitioner’s arguments, Petitioner’s declarant testimony, and IBM itself sufficiently showed at the preliminary stage that IBM senses or measures correct torque by linking into a Hall effect sensor in driver 11. Pet. 35–36; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53, 108; Ex. 1003, 82. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments for IBM raised a factual question regarding what IBM teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art, and such issues are best decided on a full record. See Prelim. Resp. 26–49. We agree that Patent Owner does not have a burden to show IBM does not measure torque; however, for purposes of institution, Petitioner sufficiently showed that IBM senses or measures torque.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 7–11 (PTAB. Feb. 13, 2020) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). Req. Reh’g 13–15 (citing Prelim. Resp. 54–64; Dec. 27). Specifically, Petitioner contends that the Decision “conflates or overlooks the two separate requirements in the first part of Advanced Bionics’ framework (art or arguments)” because we concluded “only that ‘Petitioner’s arguments were not previously presented to the Office.’” Id. at 14. However, even assuming arguendo, that substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office, the record and Petitioner sufficiently show that the Examiner materially erred for the reasons discussed in the Board decision reversing the rejection based on Gass alone. The record also shows that the Examiner did not address that error subsequently before allowing the claims. Specifically, the Examiner failed to identify the Office. Additionally, as discussed in the Decision, Petitioner’s demonstration of a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges based on IBM, as well as the Federal Circuit’s determination in SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018) were considered in our analysis of determining whether to institute review. Dec. 28–29. We determined that our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) was not sufficiently implicated so that § 325(d)’s statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting on all of Petitioner’s challenges. Id. at 28–29. Further, even if exercise of our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the challenges based on Gass was warranted, the record provided no reason for extending our discretion under § 325(d) to the IBM-based challenges to deny the entire Petition under the circumstances presented in this proceeding. Id. at 29.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “The Decision also considered the prior Board decision regarding a rejection based on Gass. Dec. 30 (discussing Ex. 1018). As discussed above and in the Decision, the preliminary record did not indicate that Gass teaches away from the challenged claims. Thus, we do not agree that the Decision overlooked or misapprehended the prior Board decision regarding the rejection based on Gass and overlooked or misapprehended that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges based on Gass.” slip op. at 9

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
• Metall Zug AG / Haag-Streit AG et al. v. Carl Zeiss Meditec AGRehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2021 · IPR2020-00911 · APJ Amber L Hagy · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution on claims 1–20 because the petition did not sufficiently show the asserted combinations taught or suggested the claimed limitations.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. Upon a request for rehearing, the 1 Huber et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,414,779 B2, issued August 19, 2008 (Ex. 1008, “Huber”). 2 Everett et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,365,856 B2, issued April 29, 2008 (Ex. 1009, “Everett”). 3 F. Lexer, C.K. Hitzenberger, A.F. Fercher, M. Kulhavy, “Wavelength-tuning interferometry of intraocular distances,” Appl. Optics, vol. 36, pp. 6548–6553 (Sept. 1, 1997) (Ex. 1006, “Lexer”). 4 W. Drexler and J. Fujimoto, eds., Optical Coherence Tomography – Technology and Applications, ISBN 978-3-540-77549-2, Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (2008) (Ex. 1010, “Drexler”). decision on a petition will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 2

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

    “added). The Decision did not, however, fault Petitioner in this manner. Rather, in the Decision, we appropriately focused on the crux of Petitioner’s argument; namely that, although Huber does not disclose an output power (which Petitioner converts to the claimed photon flux) within the claimed range, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated by Everett to use Huber’s laser on eyes, and that such use would have motivated the ordinarily skilled artisan to (in Petitioner’s words) “reduce the photon flux of the Huber laser” to achieve the claimed range “or any other ranges needed to prevent tissue damage and optimize signal strength.” Decision 20 (quoting Pet. 42). As we also noted in the Decision, the only support provided in the Petition for these assertions is a blanket citation to nearly a dozen paragraphs (spanning six pages) primarily consisting of background technical discussion from Dr. Brennan’s Declaration. Decision 20; see Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 76–85, 185). In that technical background, Dr. Brennan purportedly explains how and why “optimal optical power” may be set and selected generally in systems employing lasers. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 76–85. But, as we pointed out in the Decision, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Brennan tied any of this analysis to the prior art of record or otherwise explained the conclusory assertion made in the Petition (and echoed by Dr. Brennan) that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Huber, Everett, and Lexer to apply photon flux within the claimed range for measurement of eyes. Decision 20; see Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1012 ¶ 185.” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “‘output-power is greater than 10 mW,” which Petitioner converted to a photon flux of “a photon flux of 6.6 * 1016 photons per second.”). Both the Petition and the Request are based on a theory of overlapping ranges, but fail to show the factual basis for the application of that theory. The Decision correctly determined that the Petition fails to show that Huber discloses a range of photon flux that overlaps the claimed range.” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “added). The Decision did not, however, fault Petitioner in this manner. Rather, in the Decision, we appropriately focused on the crux of Petitioner’s argument; namely that, although Huber does not disclose an output power (which Petitioner converts to the claimed photon flux) within the claimed range, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated by Everett to use Huber’s laser on eyes, and that such use would have motivated the ordinarily skilled artisan to (in Petitioner’s words) “reduce the photon flux of the Huber laser” to achieve the claimed range “or any other ranges needed to prevent tissue damage and optimize signal strength.” Decision 20 (quoting Pet. 42). As we also noted in the Decision, the only support provided in the Petition for these assertions is a blanket citation to nearly a dozen paragraphs (spanning six pages) primarily consisting of background technical discussion from Dr. Brennan’s Declaration. Decision 20; see Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 76–85, 185). In that technical background, Dr. Brennan purportedly explains how and why “optimal optical power” may be set and selected generally in systems employing lasers. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 76–85. But, as we pointed out in the Decision, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Brennan tied any of this analysis to the prior art of record or otherwise explained the conclusory assertion made in the Petition (and echoed by Dr. Brennan) that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Huber, Everett, and Lexer to apply photon flux within the claimed range for measurement of eyes. Decision 20; see Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1012 ¶ 185.” slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,044,164
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 18, 2020 · PGR2020-00039 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Supercell’s rehearing request, leaving in place denial of institution of PGR challenging claims 1–24 based on the Fintiv factors and parallel litigation.

  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 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. 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). Additionally, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) further provides that “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” i.e., Petitioner, and “[t]he 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.”” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “the parties jointly requested a trial delay in the prior proceeding, from December 7, 2020, to March 1, 2021, which the district court granted. Ex. 1024, 1. Even considering these post-Decision developments, this three month delay results in a trial date in the parallel proceeding set six months before our final written decision would be due. Similar to the potential delay discussed in our Decision, a jury trial set to begin six months before a final written decision also weighs in favor of denying institution. Dec. 12; see Prelim. Resp. 11 (identifying three prior PTAB proceedings in which institution was denied where trial was scheduled to occur six months before a final written decision, including the precedential NHK Spring decision). We decline to speculate, absent case-specific evidence, as to any future additional delay of the parallel proceeding’s trial date that may— or may not—be requested by the parties, and that may—or may not— be granted by the district court. See Ex. 1024, 1, 4 (indicating that the trial date “cannot be changed without showing good cause,” which “is not shown merely by indicating that the parties agree that the deadline should be changed”) (emphasis omitted). On the current record, a cognizable risk of inconsistent results exists, due to the scheduled date of trial and the statutory due date of a final written decision.3” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedOther

    “contentions. In our Decision, we relied in part upon Dr. Claypool’s testimony from related litigation between the parties in determining that Petitioner failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Mastermind was publicly accessible. Dec. 24–25. Specifically, we relied upon Dr. Claypool’s prior testimony that, 4 “Mastermind’s In-Game Builder Idea (with LOADS of pictures!)” (“Mastermind”), available at https://web.archive.org/web/20130915081112/http:/forum.supercell.net:80/s howthread.php/149687-Mastermind-s-In-Game-Builder-Idea-(with-LOADSof-pictures!) (in two parts) (Ex. 1015, “Olesiuk Decl.”). it is my opinion that a diligent, skilled researcher engaged in a reasonable search for prior art would not have found Mastermind as a prior art reference even with the benefit of [Patent Owner’s] infringement contentions before the filing of the Petition for Post-Grant Review. A diligent, skilled researcher would not spend time sifting through the suggestions provided on Internet message boards, as they would normally not include useful or sufficiently detailed suggestions. Ex. 2009 ¶ 164 (emphasis added); Dec. 25.” slip op. at 8

  • Other 314aDecided for patent owner

    “different posture of PGR proceedings as compared to IPR proceedings, when exercising discretion to deny institution. As summarized above, the Decision discusses that common statutory language exists in § 314(a)— directed toward IPR proceedings—and in § 324(a)—directed to post-grant review proceedings. See supra § I.A; Dec. 5–8. The Decision also discusses the common policy justifications implicated when determining whether to institute either an IPR proceeding or a PGR proceeding. Dec. 6–7. The Decision then goes on to recognize and discuss certain differences between PGR proceedings and IPR proceedings. Id. at 7–8. Despite these differences, we determined that the Board’s binding precedent set forth in NHK Spring and Fintiv applies to this PGR proceeding. Id. In doing so, we additionally evaluated certain differences between PGR proceedings and IPR proceedings, when considering the Fintiv Order factors. See, e.g., id. at 12, 15–16, 18–20. Petitioner has not demonstrated that we abused our discretion in doing so.” slip op. at 11

  § 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,307,676

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.