- ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 17, 2021 · IPR2019-01615 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Roku’s rehearing request, leaving intact its determination that claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 were not shown unpatentable over Chardon.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. DISCUSSION On request for rehearing, “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “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, reply, or a sur-reply.” Id. We have reviewed Petitioner’s Request and carefully considered all of the arguments presented. We are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any arguments or evidence, and thus we decline to modify the Decision.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“first communication method” and “second communication method” recited in claim 1 with Chardon’s “CEC command codes” and “IR command codes,” respectively, where Chardon’s command codes are stored in a database linked to the Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) for target devices. Dec. 20–21. We thus evaluated whether command codes in an EDID-linked database teach or suggest the claimed listing comprised of at least a first communication method and a second communication method, and determined that “the record falls short of providing evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood stored command codes to act as an identification of communication methods to be used.” Id. at 21–22. slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,716,853 - PTAB · Aug 12, 2021 · PGR2021-00026 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied for claims 1–20 because Petitioner did not show error in the priority-support finding or improper burden shifting.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): 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, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s 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). A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the underlying decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The ’611 provisional application discloses a first side (8) and a second side (9) of the beveled platform (5)/distal member wherein the first lateral blade (10) and the second lateral blade (11) are “along the sides of said beveled platform.” Ex. 1007, 38. As shown in the annotated figures below, the ’611 provisional application depicts right and left edges, which are the lines/borders between the sides (8, 9) and top of the distal member, wherein these edges extend towards the rearward end from the tip (6). Decision 39–40 (citing Prelim. Resp. 21, 45–46 (citing Ex. 1007, Figs. 1, 3)). Annotated Figures 1 and 3 include added lines and labels indicating the edges of the distal member. Petitioner’s argument appears to hinge on the contention that the beveled nature of the platform prevents it from being an edge. See Req. Reh’g 4, 6. However, Petitioner provides no persuasive arguments or evidence for this contention. We understand that Petitioner disagrees with the Board’s assessment, but simple disagreement is not effective to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“The ’611 provisional application discloses a first side (8) and a second side (9) of the beveled platform (5)/distal member wherein the first lateral blade (10) and the second lateral blade (11) are “along the sides of said beveled platform.” Ex. 1007, 38. As shown in the annotated figures below, the ’611 provisional application depicts right and left edges, which are the lines/borders between the sides (8, 9) and top of the distal member, wherein these edges extend towards the rearward end from the tip (6). Decision 39–40 (citing Prelim. Resp. 21, 45–46 (citing Ex. 1007, Figs. 1, 3)). Annotated Figures 1 and 3 include added lines and labels indicating the edges of the distal member.” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the claim terms raised by Petitioner were not limited to only showing support in the ’391 patent. In fact, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response discusses in detail where these claim terms are supported in the ’611 provisional application. See Prelim. Resp. 12–24, 39–41, 43–59. We also disagree with Petitioner’s contention that Patent Owner only provided “conclusory remarks” that the challenged claims were supported by priority applications other than the ’611 provisional. Req. Reh’g 11. For example, the Preliminary Response discusses how the challenged claim terms are supported by U.S. Patent No. 15/207,329 (“the ’329 application”). See Prelim. Resp. 24–27, 61, 63–64. Further, as noted in our Decision, Patent Owner also submitted a claim chart providing exemplary excerpts from the ’611 provisional, the ’329 application, and the ’391 patent to establish support for all elements of several exemplary challenged claims. See Decision 26 n.4 (citing Prelim. Resp., Appx. A). Petitioner has not demonstrated that we improperly shifted the burden to Petitioner. Instead, we concluded that the record before us supported Patent Owner’s contention that the non-disclaimed ’391 patent claims should receive priority to the ’611 provisional application. Decision 42.” slip op. at 8
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,786,391 - 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 28, 2021 · IPR2020-00088 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied 10X Genomics’ rehearing request, leaving intact the finding that claims 15–17 were not shown unpatentable over Ismagilov 091 and US Pub. No. 2002/0058332 A1.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Petitioner had the burden of proving that the challenged claims are unpatentable. There is no requirement for the Board to provide notice to Petitioner and an opportunity to fill gaps in its case before issuing a final decision that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proof. Allowing Petitioner to submit new evidence under the circumstances presented here would be inconsistent with the standard applicable to a request for rehearing, which” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“emulsion-breaking would have been either necessary or desirable when synthesizing biological compounds, pharmaceuticals, or nanoparticles, as disclosed in Ismagilov 091. Dr. Fair’s testimony that Ismagilov 091’s uses “would require breaking the emulsions” is conclusory and unexplained. Ex. 1008 ¶ 191 (testifying without explanation that Ismagilov’s “uses would require breaking the emulsions to aggregate sufficient quantities of reaction product”). In addition, Petitioner did not cite even this conclusory testimony in its argument that emulsion-breaking was necessary. Pet. 51. Meanwhile, Ismagilov 091 provides numerous examples of uses of its methods and devices, but no suggestion that emulsion-breaking would be necessary or desirable. Accordingly, we determined that Petitioner did not “direct us to evidence sufficient to establish that it would have been obvious to place the droplets onto a second continuous phase carrier fluid comprising a destabilizing surfactant to destabilize the droplets, as recited in claims 15–17.” Dec. 63. As discussed more fully below, none of Petitioner’s arguments for rehearing persuades us that we erred in determining that the evidence of record failed to show a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used PFO to break the emulsions in Ismagilov 091.” slip op. at 13
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,896,722 - Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · 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 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,480,767 - Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2020-00170 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–14 and 17–20 because the petition did not adequately explain combining Hull and Barber.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“disclosure or that the Decision’s analysis of Hull is unsupported by substantial evidence. Petitioner does not point to any disclosure in Hull of descriptors that are not invariant to distortions such as those caused by translation, rotation, and scaling. See Req. Reh’g 2–8. Although Petitioner cites references in Hull to “other” or “alternative” embodiments, Petitioner does not identify, nor do we see, any descriptors other than distortion- invariant descriptors in those embodiments. See id. at 3–8. Nor does Petitioner cite any disclosure in Hull explicitly stating that distortion-invariant descriptors are “optional” or “exemplary,” as Petitioner contends. See id. at 1, 6, 8.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“adequate showing in its obviousness analysis that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hull1 and Barber2 in the manner proposed to achieve the claimed invention, which relates to a system and method for matching a target image to images stored in a database.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“adequate showing in its obviousness analysis that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hull1 and Barber2 in the manner proposed to achieve the claimed invention, which relates to a system and method for matching a target image to images stored in a database.” slip op. at 2
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,253,201 - Shenzhen Mediatek Tong Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Noco CompanyRehearing deniedPTAB · May 17, 2021 · IPR2020-01387 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 1–3, 5, 8–17, 19–21, and 23 because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision on institution, we do not review the merits 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.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not reached
“We recognize that Paragraph 50 of Zhang describes two ways to measure the voltage “at the two terminals” of the vehicle battery, and the other way is by the small teeth of the output power clip. Ex. 1006 ¶ 50. But Zhang describes the two ways as occurring “at the same time,” and not as alternative implementations. Thus, measurements at both points are taken to obtain the voltage at the two terminals of the vehicle battery. Dr. Hartup does not address or explain how a measurement can be taken at the input terminal of the DC contactor that would be indicative of the voltage of the external vehicle battery connected to the output terminal of the DC contactor, if the DC contactor is not already closed. Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. The Petition does not address Zhang’s disclosure of measuring the voltage of the vehicle battery on the input side of the DC contactor at the same time a measurement is taken by the small teeth of the output power clip. Paper 9, 33 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision on institution, we do not review the merits 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.” slip op. at 2
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,007,015 - ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 13, 2021 · IPR2019-01595 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution on claims 1 and 2, finding no abuse of discretion on priority entitlement or motivation to combine Darbee and Golender.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the challenging party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in a 1 Petitioner also filed a request for the Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) to review the Decision (Paper 13 (Notification of Receipt of POP Request)), which the POP denied (Paper 14 (Order)). paper of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Because Petitioner seeks rehearing of our Decision denying institution of trial based on the Petition, it must show an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.”). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 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 that could have been presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“issue upon which the priority determination turns—what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art—because Dr. Medvidovic did not provide any testimony on that issue. And we did not overlook or misapprehend any testimony of Dr. Medvidovic regarding what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art because we could not have overlooked or misapprehended any testimony that was not presented in the Medvidovic Declaration. As discussed above, Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony based on what is expressly disclosed in or necessarily follows from the disclosures of the priority applications was insufficient because Dr. Medvidovic did not explain adequately why the disclosures in the priority applications would not reasonably have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the User Action Limitation. Thus, Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Bear, provided detailed testimony and explanations regarding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the priority applications to describe the subject matter recited in the User Action Limitation (see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 111–122, 126–127), Dr. Medvidovic did not provide adequate testimony or explanations to the contrary on the issue (see Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 53–63).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“misapprehend or overlook 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The mere fact that Dr. Medvidovic provided testimony different from the testimony of Mr. Bear does not by itself raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The mere existence in the record of dueling expert testimony does not necessarily raise a genuine issue of material fact.”). As the Request acknowledges, Dr. Medvidovic in his Declaration (Ex. 1010, “Medvidovic Declaration”) testified that the subject matter of the User Action Limitation is “neither expressly disclosed [in] nor necessarily follows from” the descriptions in the priority applications about event journal data. Req. 3 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 57–62). As discussed above, however, the test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351. The record shows that Dr. Medvidovic did not provide any testimony in his Declaration as to what the disclosures in the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 53–63. Nor did Dr. Medvidovic explain adequately in his Declaration why the disclosures in the priority applications would not reasonably have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the User Action Limitation. See id.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, however, “less education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 64–67). As stated in the Bear Declaration, Mr. Bear’s work experience includes at least 9 years of computer software programming using a variety of coding languages, such as BASIC, Pascal, C, C++, and 68000 Assembly Language. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–12. Thus, Mr. Bear is qualified to testify from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art under Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. As discussed in the Decision, although we did not find the parties’ proposals for the level of ordinary skill in the art to be materially different, to the extent the testimony from the parties’ declarants on the level of ordinary skill in the art raised a genuine issue of material fact, we adopted and applied Petitioner’s definition for purposes of the Decision, being mindful of the rule that “a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” Dec. 9 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)). Thus, the record shows that, under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in consideration of § 42.108(c), the Decision appropriately credited Mr. Bear’s testimony on what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,015,446 - Medtronic Corevalve LLC v. Colibri Heart Valve LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 5, 2021 · IPR2020-01453 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied for claims 1–4 because Petitioner did not show the Board misapprehended or overlooked its arguments on the attachment limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “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.” Id. § 42.71(d). Because Petitioner has not met its burden, as discussed below, the Rehearing Request is denied.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“evidence of record, we determined that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Dec. 2. In the Rehearing Request, Petitioner seeks a reconsideration of that determination. See Reh’g Req. 1.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Upon considering that asserted basis for the proposed modification of DiMatteo, we explained that such alleged motivation was inadequately explained. Dec. 25. Our statement that Petitioner and Dr. Drasler “have not explained why attaching the valve to the proximal portion of the stent, as opposed to a central portion, would uniquely allow implantation of the valve in the direction of desired fluid flow or provide the advantage of an easy recovery of the device,” was not an application of some heightened standard for obviousness motivation. Id. at 25–26. Rather, it was a finding focused on the rationale relied upon by Petitioner and Dr. Drasler for modifying DiMatteo, i.e., to obtain an advantage or benefit from doing so. Thus, it is misleading for Petitioner to allege that the Board erred in requiring Petitioner to demonstrate the benefits of attaching the valve to the proximal portion of the stent, as our analysis focused on the rationale that Petitioner relied on for its proposed obviousness modification.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“the disclosure in Garrison that Petitioner relies upon describes only that the base of the valve is secured to the support structure/stent with sutures.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 5:42–50) (“The valve portion 38 has a base 41 which is secured to the support structure 26 with sutures . . . .”). Garrison describes the posts by merely stating, “[p]osts 32 support a valve portion 38.” Id. at 5:42 (emphasis added). Critically missing in the Petition is any showing by Petitioner that Garrison’s use of the term “support” means “attach.” Petitioner does not even allege as much. Instead, Petitioner mistakenly relies on Garrison as disclosing that the valve is sutured to the posts of the support structure. But, as may be plainly seen in the disclosure relied upon by Petitioner that is not the case. Dec. 17–18. Garrison is attached to the posts. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 92). The rationale that Dr. Drasler provides for his opinion that the valve is attached to, and not merely supported by, the posts is his assertion that, “[a]s illustrated in Figures 10-11 and 14, the valve portion (annotated in blue) is supported by the posts via sutures (not shown) described as used to secure the valve to the support structure (Garrison 5:42–47) at the proximal portion of the supporting structure (annotated in red).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 92. Thus, Dr. Drasler relies not on what is shown in Garrison’s figures, but in his mistaken belief that the quoted language from Garrison set forth above describes that the valve is secured to the posts via sutures. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 5:42–47). As we discuss above, and in the Decision, Garrison does not describe the valve being secured to the posts via sutures, or by any other means. Dec. 17–18.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,900,294 - PTAB · Mar 4, 2021 · IPR2020-00344 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and upheld denial of institution because Grounds 7, 8, 11, and 12 lacked particularity, justifying denial of the entire petition.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. REQUEST FOR REHEARING 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 1 The PTAB E2E docket system correctly identifies the denial of POP review as Paper “11,” dated “October 26, 2020.” This document itself, however, incorrectly states that it is “Paper 10.” In fact, “Paper 10” in the PTAB E2E docket system for this IPR proceeding is Patent Owner’s “RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING,” filed on August 21, 2020 See Paper 10. We note that Patent Owner was not authorized to file this response. See Consolidated Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (“Consolidated Practice Guide”), November 2019, 90 (“The opposing party should not file a response to a request for rehearing absent a request from the Board.”). No such request was made by the Board. Accordingly, Paper 10 will be expunged from this record and will not be considered in deciding Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): (d) Rehearing. . . . 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. Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). If an inter partes review is instituted, a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) must decide the patentability of all claims, and all grounds, asserted in the petition. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Petition fails to identify with particularity what disclosure is relied on from each of the references in Grounds 7, 8, 11, and 12, how it would be combined with the other disclosures, and why the proposed combination would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant technology. Without any explanation as to what, how, and why the references would have been combined in Grounds 7, 8, 11, and 12, we, and the Patent Owner, are left to speculate as to the specific details of asserted unpatentability based on combining the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See Paper 7 (“Decision” or “Dec.”), 14 (citation omitted). We determined that “[t]he lack of particularity [in Grounds 7, 8, 11, and 12] infects the proceeding sufficiently that we do not institute an inter partes review.” Id. at 16–17.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“asserted unpatentability of the claims challenged in Grounds 7 and 8, and why it would have been obvious to combine selected disclosures from each of the three references. We have not been directed to any persuasive evidence that the Petition met this burden.” slip op. at 10
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Petition, “the Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (Precedential). Apple v. Fintiv was decided in the context of evaluating the factors related to a co-pending parallel district court proceeding. The same holistic view applies equally to situations where some claims meet the requirements for instituting a trial and some do not. While we consider the number of claims that fail to meet the statutory and other requirements to institute an inter partes review, as well as the number of claims that meet these requirements, there is no fixed threshold or ratio of claims that meet the requirements compared to those that do not meet the requirements that controls our determination, as suggested by Petitioner (see Req. Reh’g 2. The Patent and Trademark Office addressed this issue in its “SAS Q&As”, which stated: D3. Q: Will the Board institute a petition based on the percentage of claims and grounds that meet the reasonable likelihood standard, e.g., 50%? A: No. The Board does not contemplate a fixed threshold for a sufficient number of challenges for which it will institute. Instead, the panel will evaluate the challenges and determine whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system (see 35 USC § 316(b)), the entire petition should be denied under 35 USC § 314(a). Ex. 3003, 8. As explained in our TPG, If a panel determines that a petition meets the standards for institution in relation to fewer than all the challenges presented, or where deficiencies in the petition (such as a failure to provide a construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)) affect only a portion of the challenges presented, the panel will evaluate all the challenges and determine whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system, the entire petition should be denied. TPG, 64. Where no trial is instituted, a decision to that effect will be provided, as was done in this proceeding. “The Board expects that the decision will contain a short statement as to why the standards were not met, although this may not be necessary in all cases.” Id. at 64–65.” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,918,801 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carucel Investments, L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2021 · IPR2019-01298 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place its decision that all challenged claims were unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: 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. A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the Final Written Decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“As discussed further below, after considering all the evidence, we provided in the Final Written Decision a detailed analysis of Patent Owner’s arguments, and rejected Patent Owner’s proposed limitations for “mobile unit,” determining that the ordinary meaning should apply and no further construction was necessary. Final Dec. 14–26. D. The Final Written Decision Our analysis of “mobile unit” in the Final Written Decision was guided by Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Final Dec. 11. In summary, for the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that our analysis of “mobile unit” under Phillips was incorrect, or that we overlooked or misapprehended Patent Owner’s arguments or evidence in that analysis.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,221,904
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.