- Momentum Dynamics Corporation v. Witricity CorporationRehearing grantedPTAB · Mar 16, 2022 · IPR2021-01165 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims were obvious over Stark, with Mecke also supporting certain distance claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision 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., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the 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 in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. Because, as explained above, we do not treat Petitioner’s explanations in the Rehearing Request as belated, based on the explanations offered in the Rehearing Request, it was error to deny the Petition. Petitioner has shown that the Decision should be modified to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Response did not address this testimony. We credit this testimony of Dr. Young. This changed understanding alone is sufficient to justify a modification of the Decision to institute inter partes review, because on this record Petitioner has shown that Stark expressly discloses, in a tuned circuit environment where all frequencies are set to the same frequency, Q1 = Q2 = 1000. Because Stark’s prototype described in Chapter 7 is for tuned circuits, Stark reasonably would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art an implementation of its disclosed prototype, which has distance D satisfying limitation [1c], with each of Q1 and Q2 set to 1000. With the changed understanding of Figure 3-9, and the fact that Figure 3-9 shows setting Q1 = Q2 = 1000, we agree with Petitioner, on the record presented, that “it would have been obvious, to implement the same system [breadboard prototype] with Q values in the hundreds or thousands, as described with respect to limitation 1/6[d].” Pet. 36 n.8. Thus, limitations 1[c] and 1[d] would have been met together.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Response did not address this testimony. We credit this testimony of Dr. Young. This changed understanding alone is sufficient to justify a modification of the Decision to institute inter partes review, because on this record Petitioner has shown that Stark expressly discloses, in a tuned circuit environment where all frequencies are set to the same frequency, Q1 = Q2 = 1000. Because Stark’s prototype described in Chapter 7 is for tuned circuits, Stark reasonably would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art an implementation of its disclosed prototype, which has distance D satisfying limitation [1c], with each of Q1 and Q2 set to 1000. With the changed understanding of Figure 3-9, and the fact that Figure 3-9 shows setting Q1 = Q2 = 1000, we agree with Petitioner, on the record presented, that “it would have been obvious, to implement the same system [breadboard prototype] with Q values in the hundreds or thousands, as described with respect to limitation 1/6[d].” Pet. 36 n.8. Thus, limitations 1[c] and 1[d] would have been met together.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“I note that while Figure 3-9 appears immediately under the heading “3.1.3 Physical interpretation of ω1 ≠ ω2”, this appears to be the result of a spacing issue with Stark’s figures. Stark’s pole-zero plots are part of its Section 3.1.2 (“Solution with primary and secondary tuned together”). Stark at 52; 93. This is confirmed by the MATLAB code included in Stark and used to generate these plots, which uses only a single value ωn, rather than a distinct ω1 and ω2. Stark at 237–38. Response did not address this testimony. We credit this testimony of Dr. Young. This changed understanding alone is sufficient to justify a modification of the Decision to institute inter partes review, because on this record Petitioner has shown that Stark expressly discloses, in a tuned circuit environment where all frequencies are set to the same frequency, Q1 = Q2 = 1000. Because Stark’s prototype described in Chapter 7 is for tuned circuits, Stark reasonably would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art an implementation of its disclosed prototype, which has distance D satisfying limitation [1c], with each of Q1 and Q2 set to 1000.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,741,734 - Ebay Inc. / Alibaba.Com Hong Kong Ltd. et al. v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Oct 12, 2018 · IPR2016-01828 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted in part: review was instituted on all challenged claims and grounds, but claims 16 and 28 were not shown unpatentable because their scope could not be determined without speculation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“For the reasons explained below, we grant Patent Owner’s request for rehearing to the extent we (1) modify our Institution Decision to institute on all of the challenged claims, including claims 16 and 28, and all of the grounds presented in the Petition, including Ground 2; and (2) modify our Final Written Decision to include a determination with respect to claims 16 and 28. We deny, however, Patent Owner’s request for rehearing to the extent we decline to read claims 16 and 28 on the prior art.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In SAS, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc., 1348 at 1359–60. In our Institution Decision, we determined that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that at least one of the challenged claims of the U.S. Patent No. 8,650,591 B2 is unpatentable. Inst. Dec. 23. Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in SAS, we now modify our Institution Decision to institute on all of the challenged claims, including claims 16 and 28, and on all of the grounds presented in the Petition, including Ground 2, and we determine, in this Decision on Patent Owner’s Motion for Rehearing, whether claims 16 and 28 have been shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“If our unpatentability analysis requires “considerable speculation as to the meaning and assumptions as to the scope” of the claims, In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962), the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art cannot be ascertained. See id.; see also BlackBerry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, Case IPR2013-00036, slip op. at 19–20 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2014) (Paper 65) (citing Steele, 305 F.2d at 862–63 for the proposition that “the prior art grounds of unpatentability must fall, pro forma, because they are based on speculative assumption[s] as to the meaning of the claims” and reasoning that “an obviousness determination based on less than all of the claimed elements is speculative as to the meaning or scope of the claims”). In other words, “[w]ithout ascertaining the proper claim scope, we cannot conduct a necessary factual inquiry for determining obviousness—ascertaining differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art.” Id. at 20 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).” slip op. at 6
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“least one partition of said at least one secondary storage device through said secondary storage partitions window,” “means for manipulating said at least one cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window,” and “means for modifying said at least one cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window.” Ex. 101, 9:66–10:25. In related litigation, the district court found in its claim construction opinion that the ’400 patent does not provide structure corresponding clearly to the functions of these limitations. Ex. 1010, 49–61. We have reviewed and considered the district court’s analysis and findings and we concur with the district court’s conclusion. We are unable to discern structure in the ’400 patent that corresponds clearly to the functions recited in the “means for” limitations of claim 16. Claim 28 recites similarly “program code for configuring said at least one partition of said at least one secondary storage device through a secondary storage partitions window,” “program code for manipulating said virtual cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window,” and “program code for means for modifying said at least one cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window.” Ex. 1001, 10:65–11:29. The district court also found that the ’400 patent did not provide structure corresponding clearly to the function of these limitations. Ex. 1010, 49–61. We have reviewed and considered the district court’s analysis and findings and we concur with the district court’s conclusion. We are unable to discern structure in the ’400 patent that corresponds clearly to the functions recited in the “program code for” limitations of claim 28.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,690,400 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Innovative Memory Systems, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · IPR2016-00326 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 13 based on anticipation by Anderl and obviousness over Anderl or Anderl and Hendry.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“On June 17, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 13, “Request” or “Reh’g Req.”) of our Decision to Institute (Paper 10, “Decision”) an inter partes review in this case. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s Request, and we agree that we overlooked the matters identified in the Request. See Reh’g Req. 2–4. Thus, for the reasons stated in the Request, we grant Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing. On rehearing, we withdraw our previous Decision and reconsider our Decision in light of the full record, as Patent Owner requests. Id. at 4. Pursuant to this reconsideration, we issue the instant Amended Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine that the information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 2, and 13 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’537 patent.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenOther
“limitation, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown adequately that Anderl discloses “said appended information featuring said at least one associated type of permission for accessing the stored data,” as recited in claim 1. Patent Owner focuses narrowly on the value of the data included in protection bytes 43 to 45 of Anderl. See Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Yet the claim does not focus only on the data alone, but instead recites “appended information.” As the Petition explains, Anderl discloses that the information is appended based on location in file as the value at the particular location. See Pet. 23–24. In particular, Anderl discloses that each file includes prefix section 41 that is located in the first record of each file and contains file identification number 42 and protection bytes 43, 44, and 45. Ex. 1005, 6:57–60. Anderl states that “[t]he protection bytes 43 through 45 specify the file permissions.” Id. at 6:65–66 (emphasis added). As Anderl discloses,” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“not persuaded that “type of permission” is limited to only the type of action that can be performed, e.g., reading or writing, with respect to the data. Instead, the Specification repeatedly refers to the “types of permissions” as “for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract (“The device, method and system enable various types of permissions to be set for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.”); 2:32–36 (“The present invention enables various types of permissions to be set for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.”); 3:4:26–30 (same). Given this broader usage in the Specification, for purposes of this decision, the “type of permission” is for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data that does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied. The access, if not denied, may include reading from or writing to the stored data. As for “featuring,” we are not persuaded that “featuring,” as used in claim 1 of the ’537 patent is synonymous with “represent,” as Patent Owner contends. A relevant meaning of “featuring” is “to be an important part or aspect of something.” See Ex. 3001. This meaning only requires that the thing that is featured be an important part or aspect, not that it correspond to or represent the thing. Patent Owner does not point us to any disclaimer or definition that would limit this meaning. See Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Instead, the Specification appears to use the related term “feature” in this ordinary sense. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:54–56 (“As another option, the device may feature a single chip with a microprocessor and firmware for operating the data access features ….”); 5:25– 27 (“A system 10 features a CPU 12 for executing instructions….”); 8:15–19 (“For example, an access control code could be implemented with a combination of different types of data, each of which could again feature a separately selected and assigned data access permission, which optionally and preferably is different for each portion of the data.”). Moreover, the portion of Specification cited by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:34–61)) makes clear that it only refers to a preferred embodiment and the permissions do not need to be stored as a “code,” i.e., specific information or data representing the permission. See id. at 6:35–36 (“According to preferred embodiments…”), 6:43–47 (“If such a permission is to be stored in an abbreviated code, the code for this particular type of permission could be given as ‘R/W/WP’, for example. Such a code could optionally be stored in the non-volatile 16, for example.” (emphases added)). Such optional language is not sufficient to limit the claimed “appended information” to only something that “represents” the permission, such as a code. See Prolitec Inc. v. Scentair Techs., Inc., 807 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he use of ‘may’ signifies that the inventors did not intend to limit [the claim]. . . .”); Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 735 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that non-limiting examples are not sufficient to redefine a term).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,324,537 - PTAB · Feb 26, 2016 · IPR2015-01047 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted Patent Owner limited additional discovery about Ward Dietrich’s involvement in preparing or controlling the Petition and denied discovery of other requested materials.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments in the Request but, with the exception noted below, find them unpersuasive to demonstrate that we misapprehended or overlooked any points. For example, we disagree with Patent Owner that “[t]he Motion certainly met this standard [of showing beyond speculation that something useful would be uncovered as to RPI issues]” for at least the reasons previously detailed in the Decision. See Decision 1–5. However, Patent Owner argues that “Ward Dietrich is Chief Operating Officer of the Mangrove Partners Master Fund” and “has no public role in petitioner” (Motion 3 (citing Ex. 2002 at 2)) and that “Ward Dietrich held himself out as an ‘authorized person’ to sign the Power of Attorney on behalf of Petitioner” (Req. Reh’g 6 (quoting Motion 3)). Petitioner does not appear to refute this contention. Patent Owner further requests “[c]ommunications and documents or things . . . including assistance with identification of prior art, filing, funding, compensation, and/or preparation of any papers related to the Mangrove IPRs” and the identification of “persons and entities . . . involved in the preparation and filing of the petitions” and “persons and entities . . . who controlled or had the ability to control the preparation and filing of the petitions in the Mangrove IPRs.” Ex. 2034, 3; Ex. 2035, 3. In view of Ward Dietrich’s alleged role as an officer of Mangrove Partners and the named Petitioner, we grant Patent Owner’s motion for additional discovery for the limited purpose of providing communications and/or agreements pertaining to Ward Dietrich’s involvement in the preparation and filing of the Petition and/or control or ability to control the preparation and filing of the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, grantedAdditional discovery, deniedGranted in part
“However, Patent Owner argues that “Ward Dietrich is Chief Operating Officer of the Mangrove Partners Master Fund” and “has no public role in petitioner” (Motion 3 (citing Ex. 2002 at 2)) and that “Ward Dietrich held himself out as an ‘authorized person’ to sign the Power of Attorney on behalf of Petitioner” (Req. Reh’g 6 (quoting Motion 3)). Petitioner does not appear to refute this contention. Patent Owner further requests “[c]ommunications and documents or things . . . including assistance with identification of prior art, filing, funding, compensation, and/or preparation of any papers related to the Mangrove IPRs” and the identification of “persons and entities . . . involved in the preparation and filing of the petitions” and “persons and entities . . . who controlled or had the ability to control the preparation and filing of the petitions in the Mangrove IPRs.” Ex. 2034, 3; Ex. 2035, 3. In view of Ward Dietrich’s alleged role as an officer of Mangrove Partners and the named Petitioner, we grant Patent Owner’s motion for additional discovery for the limited purpose of providing communications and/or agreements pertaining to Ward Dietrich’s involvement in the preparation and filing of the Petition and/or control or ability to control the preparation and filing of the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Patent Owner requests an “expanded panel that includes the Chief Judge” because, according to Patent Owner, an expanded panel “is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity” and to “clarify the standard for additional discovery.” Req. Reh’g 1–2, 8–9. Discretion to expand a panel rests with the Chief Judge, who, on behalf of the Director, may act to expand a panel on a suggestion from a judge or panel. AOL Inc. v. Coho Sicensing LLC, Case IPR2014-00771, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2015)(Paper 12)(informative). Patent Owner’s suggestion was considered by the Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge, who declined to expand the panel.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,490,151 - PTAB · Feb 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01457 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted, adding claims 8–10 to trial under § 103 grounds over Ejzak and Intel, and Ejzak and Cisco.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“of claim 8 which recites: “said bypass mode data indicating a bypass mode setting for said media gateway.” In the Decision, we stated: “The reference [in Ejzak] merely to ‘policy’ is unreasonably broad and not very meaningful when the limitation pertains to the bypass setting for a particular device.” Dec. 23. We questioned whether “local policy” that may apply generally to all media gateways indicates a specific bypass setting for a particular ALG, BG, or media gateway. Id. at 22. On that basis, we concluded that Petitioner failed to provide adequate explanation on how a “local policy” satisfies the bypass mode data requirement of claim 8. Id. at 23. Petitioner identifies in its rehearing request points we misapprehended in our Decision. The Petition, as filed, adequately explains the “local policy” is specific to the local ALG. Reh. Req. 9–10. Petitioner identifies testimony of Mr. Bress, referred to in the Petition, that explain why one with ordinary skill in the art would understand “local policy” of Ejzak as local and specific to the ALG. Id. at 11 (citing ¶¶ 238–43 of Ex. 1104). We agree that on the record before us, “local policy” appears to be local to the ALG and not generally applicable to all media gateways.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“in our Decision. The Petition, as filed, adequately explains the “local policy” is specific to the local ALG. Reh. Req. 9–10. Petitioner identifies testimony of Mr. Bress, referred to in the Petition, that explain why one with ordinary skill in the art would understand “local policy” of Ejzak as local and specific to the ALG. Id. at 11 (citing ¶¶ 238–43 of Ex. 1104). We agree that on the record before us, “local policy” appears to be local to the ALG and not generally applicable to all media gateways.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,687,640 - PTAB · Feb 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00221 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing to the extent that Patent Owner may file a revised motion to exclude with the improper material removed.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“We are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude complied with the Order dated June 20, 2014. Even as characterized in the Rehearing Request, the Motion to Exclude indisputably contained arguments alleging that Petitioner’s Reply was beyond the proper scope of a reply, and not just arguments directed solely to the evidence in support of the Reply. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s explanation is sufficient to justify an opportunity for the Patent Owner to file a Revised Motion to Exclude, which would be the same as the Motion to Exclude but with the inappropriate material removed, as Patent Owner has offered in the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“We are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude complied with the Order dated June 20, 2014. Even as characterized in the Rehearing Request, the Motion to Exclude indisputably contained arguments alleging that Petitioner’s Reply was beyond the proper scope of a reply, and not just arguments directed solely to the evidence in support of the Reply. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s explanation is sufficient to justify an opportunity for the Patent Owner to file a Revised Motion to Exclude, which would be the same as the Motion to Exclude but with the inappropriate material removed, as Patent Owner has offered in the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,991,522 - PTAB · Feb 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00222 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing to the extent that Magna may file a revised motion to exclude with the improper material removed.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“We are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude complied with the Order dated June 20, 2014. Even as characterized in the Rehearing Request, the Motion to Exclude indisputably contained arguments alleging that Petitioner’s Reply was beyond the proper scope of a reply, and not just arguments directed solely to the evidence in support of the Reply. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s explanation is sufficient to justify an opportunity for the Patent Owner to file a Revised Motion to Exclude, which would be the same as the Motion to Exclude but with the inappropriate material removed, as Patent Owner has offered in the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“We are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude complied with the Order dated June 20, 2014. Even as characterized in the Rehearing Request, the Motion to Exclude indisputably contained arguments alleging that Petitioner’s Reply was beyond the proper scope of a reply, and not just arguments directed solely to the evidence in support of the Reply. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s explanation is sufficient to justify an opportunity for the Patent Owner to file a Revised Motion to Exclude, which would be the same as the Motion to Exclude but with the inappropriate material removed, as Patent Owner has offered in the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude complied with the Order dated June 20, 2014. Even as characterized in the Rehearing Request, the Motion to Exclude indisputably contained arguments alleging that Petitioner’s Reply was beyond the proper scope of a reply, and not just arguments directed solely to the evidence in support of the Reply. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s explanation is sufficient to justify an opportunity for the Patent Owner to file a Revised Motion to Exclude, which would be the same as the Motion to Exclude but with the inappropriate material removed, as Patent Owner has offered in the Request for Rehearing. In the interest of avoiding further confusion and non-compliance, a joint telephone conference call will be held to confirm precisely what content will be removed from the Revised Motion to Exclude, what revised opposition will be filed by Petitioner, and what revised reply will be filed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,386,114 - PTAB · Feb 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00220 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing to allow the Patent Owner to file a revised motion to exclude with improper material removed.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“We are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude complied with the Order dated June 20, 2014. Even as characterized in the Rehearing Request, the Motion to Exclude indisputably contained arguments alleging that Petitioner’s Reply was beyond the proper scope of a reply, and not just arguments directed solely to the evidence in support of the Reply. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s explanation is sufficient to justify an opportunity for the Patent Owner to file a Revised Motion to Exclude, which would be the same as the Motion to Exclude but with the inappropriate material removed, as Patent Owner has offered in the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted
“We are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude complied with the Order dated June 20, 2014. Even as characterized in the Rehearing Request, the Motion to Exclude indisputably contained arguments alleging that Petitioner’s Reply was beyond the proper scope of a reply, and not just arguments directed solely to the evidence in support of the Reply. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s explanation is sufficient to justify an opportunity for the Patent Owner to file a Revised Motion to Exclude, which would be the same as the Motion to Exclude but with the inappropriate material removed, as Patent Owner has offered in the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,859,565 - PTAB · Feb 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00227 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing to the extent that Magna may file a revised motion to exclude with the improper material removed.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“We are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude complied with the Order dated June 20, 2014. Even as characterized in the Rehearing Request, the Motion to Exclude indisputably contained arguments alleging that Petitioner’s Reply was beyond the proper scope of a reply, and not just arguments directed solely to the evidence in support of the Reply. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s explanation is sufficient to justify an opportunity for the Patent Owner to file a Revised Motion to Exclude, which would be the same as the Motion to Exclude but with the inappropriate material removed, as Patent Owner has offered in the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“We are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude complied with the Order dated June 20, 2014. Even as characterized in the Rehearing Request, the Motion to Exclude indisputably contained arguments alleging that Petitioner’s Reply was beyond the proper scope of a reply, and not just arguments directed solely to the evidence in support of the Reply. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s explanation is sufficient to justify an opportunity for the Patent Owner to file a Revised Motion to Exclude, which would be the same as the Motion to Exclude but with the inappropriate material removed, as Patent Owner has offered in the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,877,175
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.