- Cambridge Industries USA, Inc. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00434 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Shen and Soldano did not establish a reasonable likelihood of anticipating claims 1–7.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and 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 its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS In our Decision, we concluded that Petitioner had failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing that either Shen or Soldano anticipated claims 1–7. Dec. 18, 26. Petitioner argues that we should institute review for three reasons. First, Petitioner argues that we abused our discretion by (a) “refusing” to interpret the scope of the claimed” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Owner’s interpretation of “carrier” as meaning “one or more components for supporting ROSA components such as an AWG.” Dec. 9 (quoting Pet. 11). For our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges, we referred to this interpretation of “carrier” as Petitioner’s second alternative construction. Id. We also noted that Petitioner appeared to dispute Patent Owner’s interpretation when it argued that “carrier” should mean “a ceramic or silicon substrate.” Id. (quoting Pet. 10). We referred to this interpretation of “carrier” as the first alternative construction. Id. Rather than resolve this apparent dispute about the meaning of “carrier,” we found that both of Petitioner’s anticipation challenges failed under both interpretations of “carrier.” Id. at 10–26. Because we found that Petitioner had failed to carry its burden regardless of which interpretation of “carrier” applied, we found it unnecessary to resolve the dispute over that interpretation. Id. at 9–10. For the reasons expressed in Parts II.B–C below, we maintain our conclusion that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of proving that either Shen or Soldano anticipates any claim under either interpretation of “carrier.” Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in our alleged “refusal” to interpret “carrier.”” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Reh’g Req. 14. We cannot weigh Petitioner’s arguments based on its assertions about “caselaw” because Petitioner cited no cases to support its arguments. See id. Nevertheless, we infer that Petitioner intends its statements of “caselaw” to refer to the requirements to make out a case for anticipation. If so, Petitioner demonstrably miscasts what appear to be the legal principles for proving anticipation. As stated in our Decision: “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” Dec. 7. Making a showing that a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim thus necessarily requires proof that a single reference “expressly or inherently” describes every element of that claim and with all elements being arranged in the reference as they are in the” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,379,301 - Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00267 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed § 103 combination.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW 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).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“green, left), placed inside the housing between the housing and heating element (red), and surrounding the heating element and portions of the liquid storage portion (blue). Otherwise, Combined Figure 4 is nearly the same as Annotated Figure 4. Compare Combined Fig. 4, with Ann. Fig. 4. Thus, Petitioner does not propose a simple substitution to include the mouthpiece housing of Thorens231 in the device of Thorens788 in the same manner as used in Thorens231. Rather, Petitioner proposes including the mouthpiece housing of Thorens231 in the device of Thorens788 and then further modifying its placement by inserting it into the housing. See Combined Fig. 4. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Janet persuasively explain why this arrangement would be expected to be successful nor do they allege that such a modification would have been within the skill set of the ordinarily skilled artisan. In contrast, Patent Owner explains that Petitioner’s [Combined] Figure 4 appears to block any airflow through the device and out of the mouthpiece. Petitioner and its expert do not account for how the mouthpiece would be secured to the liquid storage portion in Thorens788. Moreover, as drawn by Petitioner, the wick touches what is presumably the air inlet for the mouthpiece (although Petitioner does not discuss where the air inlet is), which could adversely impact performance or user experience, such as draw resistance[.] Prelim. Resp. 50–51. Because Petitioner did not direct our attention to any argument or testimony to account for whether or how the modified device would function, Petitioner did not meet its initial burden of proof of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an expectation of success in the combination. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that it is “at all times, [petitioner’s] burden to show that the claims would have” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Prelim. Resp. 50–51. Because Petitioner did not direct our attention to any argument or testimony to account for whether or how the modified device would function, Petitioner did not meet its initial burden of proof of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an expectation of success in the combination. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that it is “at all times, [petitioner’s] burden to show that the claims would have been obvious, including that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention”).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,134,722 - PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 8, 2023 · IPR2021-01077 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the final written decision finding claims 1–18 unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING 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 in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a sur-reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“misapprehended or overlooked matters relevant to whether an ordinary artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining Garcia and Randle. Req. 1–5. We have reviewed and carefully considered all of the arguments presented, but determine Patent Owner fails to show that the Decision misapprehended or overlooked any material arguments or evidence. To provide context for our discussion, we begin with a targeted summary of the Decision, and then we turn to Patent Owner’s specific arguments.” slip op. at 2
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,621,559 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00182 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Rehearing
Denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request; the Board found no abuse of discretion in instituting IPR of claims 1, 24, and 25 on the stated § 103 grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2022). In a rehearing request, the party challenging the decision “must specifically identify” (1) “all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) “the place where each matter was previously addressed” in an earlier submission. Id.; see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 90.3 “A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the underlying decision.” MicroSurgical Tech., Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., PGR2021-00026, Paper 14 at 2 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2021). “Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not explain why issue preclusion permits the Board to hold the district court’s finding that Cisco “copied software functionality from the [infringed] patents” against Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 16, 54–56; Req. Reh’g 3, 14–15. Issue preclusion “is appropriate only if”: (1) “the issue is identical to one decided in the first action”; (2) “the issue was actually litigated in the first action”; (3) “resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action”; and (4) the party defending against preclusion “had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., 988 F.3d 1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Patent Owner does not address any of these requirements for issue preclusion. See Prelim. Resp. 16, 54–56; Req. Reh’g 3, 14–15.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Regarding the policy’s whitelist processing, if the security device determines that a newly received packet with encrypted data is correlated to the hostname corresponding to the whitelisted destination domain, the security device filters the packet by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain. See Ex. 1004, 7:52–59, 16:36–42; Ex. 1003 ¶ 90; see also Ex. 1004, 6:1–11. Filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain occurs “without having to decrypt the encrypted secure tunnel session traffic.” Ex. 1004, 5:24–27, 5:35–42, 7:1–9, 11:7–19; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94, 113. Further, filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain results from applying a packet-filtering rule (a whitelisted destination domain) to the packet. Hence, we disagree with Patent Owner that Buruganahalli’s security devices process whitelisted packets by “forward[ing] the entire encrypted stream without . . . filtering encrypted packets.” See Req. Reh’g 10. We also disagree with Patent Owner that “encrypted packets in whitelisted sessions” are (1) “forwarded without applying any packet-filtering rules” and (2) “allowed uninspected.” See id. at 11 n.1, 13. Regarding the policy’s blacklist processing, if the security device determines that a newly received packet with encrypted data is correlated to the hostname corresponding to the blacklisted destination domain, the security device either blocks the packet (as Patent Owner contends) or filters the packet by forwarding it to a decryption engine. See Ex. 1004, 7:60–67, 9:61–67, 14:33–36, 16:43–48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–91, 94, 97, 108, 118, 127, 137; Req. Reh’g 10–11, 13. Filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to a decryption engine occurs “without having to decrypt the encrypted secure tunnel session traffic.” Ex. 1004, 5:24–27, 5:35–42, 7:1–9, 11:7–19; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94, 113, 135. Further, filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to a decryption engine results from applying a packet-filtering rule (a blacklisted destination domain) to the packet and corresponds to limitation [1.g] and the similar limitations in claims 24 and 25. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 134–135. The Institution Decision explained how Buruganahalli’s security devices may filter packets comprising unencrypted data and packets comprising encrypted data according to claims 1, 24, and 25 by applying a whitelist/blacklist policy to the packets. See, e.g., Inst. Dec. 57–60, 66–67, 69–71. As the Institution Decision explained and as discussed above, “for each session packets comprising unencrypted data and packets comprising encrypted data are correlated and filtered based on the hostname (destination domain) extracted from the handshake traffic, and then the correlated and filtered packets are processed separately from packets destined for other domains.” See Inst. Dec. 69–70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 120–121, 133–135; Ex. 1004, 7:39–67, 8:55–60, 11:47–51, 14:21–33, 14:50–55, 16:32–48. Buruganahalli discloses additional filtering after forwarding a newly received packet with encrypted data to a decryption engine, e.g., as occurs in Buruganahalli’s Figure 3B embodiment. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 6:17–22, 9:67–10:4, 12:4–64, Fig. 3B. But claims 1, 24, and 25 use the transitional term “comprising.” Ex. 1001, 25:14, 28:59, 29:29–30. Hence, the claims do not “exclude unrecited elements,” such as additional filtering after forwarding a newly received packet with encrypted data to a decryption engine. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus N.V., 864 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,917,856 - Intel Corporation / Cavium, LLC et al. v. Alacritech, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 13, 2022 · IPR2017-01410 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request and maintained that claims 41–43 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish network-interface reassembly.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its petition. Id.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Put another way, the finding that Petitioner did not admit that the disputed limitation is not taught by Tanenbaum was not a finding that Petitioner proved that that limitation is taught or suggested by the asserted prior art. As the Federal Circuit explained, “the Board’s rejection of certain arguments made by [Patent Owner] does not necessarily support the Board’s finding that the asserted prior art teaches or suggests reassembly in the network interface,” and “[t]hat is especially the case here, where the parties’ briefing focuses on the disclosure of the reassembly limitations by one reference (Thia), but the Board appears to have relied on a different reference (Tanenbaum) to support its finding.” Id. at 1371–72 (emphasis added). The Court, accordingly, vacated the Board’s obviousness determination as to claims 41–43 and remanded “for the Board to reconsider whether the asserted prior art teaches or suggests the entirety of the reassembly limitations, including the requirement that reassembly takes place in the network interface.” Id. at 1373 (emphasis added). And as we explained in the Decision on Remand, after such reconsideration, we were not persuaded that the combination of Thia and Tanenbaum teaches or suggests “a flow re-assembler, disposed in the network interface,” as recited in claim 41, or a “network interface comprising . . . a re-assembler,” as recited in claim 43. RFWD 22–25. While Petitioner argues that “the RFWD tacitly acknowledges that the Petition’s discussion of Tanenbaum is much more extensive than the discussion on p. 77 that the Federal Circuit described as ‘conclusory’” (Req. Reh’g 3 n.4 (citing RFWD 23–24)), we find nothing in that “more extensive” discussion that establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the asserted combination teaches or suggests reassembly in the network interface.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,131,880 - SNF S.A. v. Solenis Technologies, L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 4, 2021 · IPR2020-01730 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and, despite finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 12 and 13, denied institution because most challenged claims did not meet the threshold and review would be inefficient.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be found if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot reached
“Petitioner offers to waive its arguments with respect to invalidity grounds 2 and 3 if we institute inter partes review. Id. This offer makes our exercise of discretion a closer call, but even absent grounds 2 and 3, granting institution would require that we institute on all claims. We have determined that, for a sizeable majority of challenged claims, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Under the circumstances presented here, we determine it would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources to institute review. See Chevron, Paper 9 at 10–11; Deeper, Paper 7. Accordingly, we exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to decline to institute post-grant review.” slip op. at 11
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“reasons discussed herein and in the Decision, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to challenged claims 1–11 and 14–21. However, based on the preliminary record, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 12 and 13 would have been obvious over the cited art. Accordingly, this case presents the question whether we should exercise our discretion to deny institution. Our decision as to whether discretionary denial is warranted is guided by Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative) and Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Both of these cases explain that “the Board may consider the number of claims and grounds that meet the reasonable likelihood standard when deciding whether to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” Chevron, Paper 9 at 10–11; Deeper, Paper 7 at 42. In Chevron, the panel ultimately exercised discretion to deny institution where “Petitioner demonstrate[d], at most, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to two dependent claims out of a total of twenty challenged claims.” Chevron, Paper 9 at 12. Similarly, in Deeper, the panel exercised discretion to deny institution where Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to only two out of twenty three challenged claims. Deeper, Paper 7 at 43.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Mixed
“art – selecting values within the ranges disclosed in the prior art to calculate a ratio – did not support institution because Petitioner never explained how or why it selected any of the specific values it used to calculate the claimed ratio. Dec. 13. We concluded that Petitioner’s second use of the ranges disclosed in the art – optimizing within the disclosed ranges – did not support institution because the prior art did not disclose that the ratio of WAMW to % DADMAC was a result effective variable (id. at 17) and because Petitioner had not shown that independently optimizing WAMW and % DADMAC would lead to copolymer having the claimed ratio (id. at 17–20).” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,644,320 - Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Solas Oled, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 25, 2021 · IPR2019-01668 · APJ Jessica C Kaiser · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–20 unpatentable over Moran and Joo-based obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing that 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 in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a sur-reply.” Id. A request for rehearing, therefore, is not an opportunity to merely disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s arguments regarding motivation to combine the teachings of Moran and Joo. In our Decision, we found that, “[a]s Patent Owner acknowledges (PO Sur-reply 26), Petitioner’s combination does not rely on any manufacturing techniques in Joo.” Dec. 21. We agreed with Petitioner that “creat[ing] additional touch sensitive regions on the sides of the device as taught in Joo,” provides the benefits attributed to Joo, but the benefits “are not wholly dependent upon the injection molding technique of Joo.” Id. (citing Pet. 66–67). Although we appreciate that Joo uses injection molding to form his device, we determined that the “benefits [of Joo] inure from having the touch sensitive portion on the side of the display rather than the manufacturing technique that results in that touch sensitive portion (i.e., injection molding versus bending the touch sensitive portion to wrap it around the edge of the display).” Id. at 21–22. This is consistent with Petitioner’s “Motivation to Combine” set forth in the Petition, i.e., “application of a known technique [Joo’s teaching of wrapping a touch sensor around the edges of a touchscreen display] to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement [Moran’s flexible capacitive touch sensor for a touchscreen device].” Pet. 67 (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). Indeed, in our Decision on Institution (Paper 7, 21), we expressly stated that we did not “understand Petitioner’s combination to rely on any manufacturing techniques in Joo.” Accordingly, we determine we did not change reasoning midstream as to why we agreed with Petitioner’s motivation to combine the teachings of Moran and Joo, and thus, did not misapprehend or overlook Petitioner’s motivation to combine the teachings of Moran and Joo.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We disagree. In our Decision, we found Dr. Wolfe’s testimony “credible and persuasive that resolving [implementation] details would have been well within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Dec. 23 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 178–183). Dr. Wolfe provided detailed testimony supported by objective evidence on this point. See id. (citing Pet. 68); Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 182–183 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:13–21; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 8–9; Ex. 1018, 2955, 2962; Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 25, 33, 81; Ex. 1003, 21:8–12, 27:48–28:38, 29:55– 30:33). Thus, even if Mr. Credelle’s testimony was not directly rebutted, we properly weighed Mr. Credelle’s testimony against Dr. Wolfe’s testimony. As such, we determined that a preponderance of the evidence supported Petitioner’s contention that an ordinary artisan would have known how to modify Moran to arrive at a substrate and touch sensor configured to wrap around an edge of a display. See Dec. 26. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we overlooked or failed to consider any argument or evidence related to how the proposed modification would have been achieved.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Not reached
“D. Constitutionality The remainder of Patent Owner’s arguments on rehearing are devoted to contesting the constitutionality of the appointments of the Administrative Patent Judges. Req. Reh’g 9–12. We decline to address Patent Owner’s constitutional challenge except to note that the constitutionality of the appointments of the Administrative Patent Judges was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970, 1986–87, 1997 (2021).” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,256,311 - Foster-Miller Inc. v. Flir Detection Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 20, 2021 · IPR2020-00301 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Foster-Miller’s rehearing requests in both proceedings, leaving institution denied because the petition did not adequately show the challenged claim’s limitations in SuperDroid or Wang.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See generally 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (b)–(d). 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). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence. “It is not an abuse of discretion to have made an analysis or conclusion with which a party disagrees,” and “mere disagreement with the Board’s analysis or conclusion is not a proper basis for rehearing.” EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, IPR2013-00085, Paper 29 at 4 (PTAB June 5, 2013).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner does not persuade us that we overlooked Superdroid’s disclosures. After careful consideration of the evidence presented in the Petition and the Requests for Rehearing, as stated in our Institution Decision, “it is not clear from SuperDroid’s figures h and i or the brief explanation of Steps 2 and 3 that the front end of the robot contacts and ascends the front face of the obstacle, with the support surface generating sufficient traction to climb the riser.” Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 26–27 (testimony of testimony of Dr. Robert H. Sturges, declarant for Patent Owner)). Petitioner provides additional argument and analysis of SuperDroid’s figures in support of its Request for Rehearing, but arguments that go beyond the analysis presented as to this limitation in the Petition could not have been misapprehended. See, e.g., Req. Reh’g 3 (providing annotated version of SuperDroid’s figure g), 6 (providing enlarged and annotated version of SuperDroid’s figure h). Petitioner’s argument is mere disagreement with our findings in the Institution Decisions regarding the disclosure of Superdroid.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner
“plain meaning of Element [1d] for the first time in its Request for Rehearing. Petitioner did not provide any explicit construction of Element [1d] in the Petition. See Pet. 10 (“no claim terms require[] construction, and all claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning”). We could not have misapprehended an argument that was not adequately made in the Petition. In any event, Petitioner does not persuade us that the plain language of Element [1d] does not require pivoting the trailing arm while the vehicle ascends the stair. Petitioner’s argument relies upon Figs. 5G–5I of the ’752 patent to argue that Element [1d] does not require pivoting the trailing arm while the vehicle ascends the stair. Req. Reh’g 13. Petitioner’s argument, however, does not account for Figs. 5J–5O of the ’752 patent, which depict pivoting the trailing arm to push the robot vehicle upward while driving the vehicle tracks to surmount the stair nose. See Ex. 1001, 10:61–11:4, claims 2–4. Accordingly, the ’752 patent figures are consistent with reading Element [1d] to require pivoting the trailing arm while the vehicle ascends the stair. At a minimum, Petitioner’s reading of the claim required further explanation if not an explicit construction in the Petition, given that the limitation could be read consistent with the specification in a manner different that Petitioner presumed.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“And, as explicitly pointed out in the Institution Decision, the Petition’s explanation of how Wang meets Element [1d] is insufficient to establish that Wang’s arm pivots while ascending a stair. See Inst. Dec. 20– 21. “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)).” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,074,752 - 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 - 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
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.