- Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 26, 2020 · PGR2018-00001 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 3–30 unpatentable for lack of enablement because the specification does not guide an artisan to practice their full scope without undue experimentation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Upon request for rehearing, we review our 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.” 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, or a reply.” Id. Based on an application of those principles, we deny the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyOther
“zolendronic acid dosage forms could achieve bioavailabilities as high as 1.1% to “a belie[f] in ‘fairies.’” Req. Reh’g 2 (quoting Dec. 14; Ex. 2014, 137:21–138:8). That testimony represents a small fraction of the totality of evidence that undergirds our finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan generally would have expected that attaining a human bioavailability for zolendronic acid above 1% required an enhancer. See Dec. 12–21 (citing substantial evidence for that proposition). Even if we set aside the testimony misattributed to Dr. Wargin, substantial evidence supports that finding.” slip op. at 3
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
“unenhanced dosage form of zoledronic acid disclosed in Aronhime or Exhibit 2026 would have attained a bioavailability that falls within the scope of the challenged claims. The key is whether an ordinarily skilled artisan, reading the disclosure of the ’268 Patent, would have been equipped to practice the full scope of the claimed invention. We did not overlook or misapprehend Exhibit 2026. We correctly determined that, in this unpredictable field of pharmaceutical formulation, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have required direction (lacking in the Specification or the prior art) explaining how to prepare dosage forms that meet the full range of bioavailabilities embraced by the challenged claims, including the specified high endpoint human bioavailability of about 4%. See, e.g., Dec. 11–12 (citing undisputed evidence of unpredictable nature of the field of invention (Ex. 1005 ¶ 60)).” slip op. at 7
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,539,268 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2020 · IPR2019-01502 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Bentley’s rehearing request and left the denial of institution in place because the petition lacked persuasive evidence that the Porsche 959 art taught or suggested multiple subsystems.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“petition decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party seeking rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenInstitution denied meritsInstitution denied
“analysis, and that under the proper claim construction the center and rear differential are separate “subsystems.” Req. 3–6. Neither party sought a construction of the “subsystem.” See Pet. 12–15 (seeking only a claim construction of the term “off-road modes”); Prelim. Resp. Instead, Petitioner chose to rely on Dr. Bower’s conclusory testimony that the differentials of the Porsche 959 met this limitation. See Pet. 20–23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 48). We found such testimony to be not persuasive and entitled to no weight. See Dec. 13–14. Without any evidence to support it, we concluded that Petitioner’s conclusory explanation did not meet the “reasonable likelihood of prevailing” standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Thus, we disagree that we should have engaged in claim construction of the term “subsystem,” when Petitioner itself chose not to. Petitioner cannot salvage Dr. Bower’s conclusory analysis by requesting a claim construction after the fact.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner
“analysis, and that under the proper claim construction the center and rear differential are separate “subsystems.” Req. 3–6. Neither party sought a construction of the “subsystem.” See Pet. 12–15 (seeking only a claim construction of the term “off-road modes”); Prelim. Resp. Instead, Petitioner chose to rely on Dr. Bower’s conclusory testimony that the differentials of the Porsche 959 met this limitation. See Pet. 20–23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 48). We found such testimony to be not persuasive and entitled to no weight. See Dec. 13–14. Without any evidence to support it, we concluded that Petitioner’s conclusory explanation did not meet the “reasonable likelihood of prevailing” standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Thus, we disagree that we should have engaged in claim construction of the term “subsystem,” when Petitioner itself chose not to. Petitioner cannot salvage Dr. Bower’s conclusory analysis by requesting a claim construction after the fact.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“analysis, and that under the proper claim construction the center and rear differential are separate “subsystems.” Req. 3–6. Neither party sought a construction of the “subsystem.” See Pet. 12–15 (seeking only a claim construction of the term “off-road modes”); Prelim. Resp. Instead, Petitioner chose to rely on Dr. Bower’s conclusory testimony that the differentials of the Porsche 959 met this limitation. See Pet. 20–23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 48). We found such testimony to be not persuasive and entitled to no weight. See Dec. 13–14. Without any evidence to support it, we concluded that Petitioner’s conclusory explanation did not meet the “reasonable likelihood of prevailing” standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Thus, we disagree that we should have engaged in claim construction of the term “subsystem,” when Petitioner itself chose not to. Petitioner cannot salvage Dr. Bower’s conclusory analysis by requesting a claim construction after the fact.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction - PTAB · Jan 21, 2020 · IPR2019-01091 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution for claims 1, 13, 25-27, 29, 30, 32, 34-36, and 166, finding no abuse of discretion.
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 addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its decision.” Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 442 (Fed. Cir. 2015). With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner entities in turn.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“argument because it is a new argument presented for the first time in the Request for Rehearing. Although Petitioner entities affirmatively discuss the Rackspace IPR in the Petition, they only do so in the context of explaining that the Petition is not a follow-on petition to the petition filed in the Rackspace IPR because it involves a different petitioner, different claims, different asserted grounds of unpatentability, and different arguments and evidence. See Pet. 12–13. Indeed, Petitioner entities do not address squarely Francisco’s disclosure of periodically varying the algorithm in the Petition, much less take the position that periodically varying the algorithm is an “optional” feature. See generally Pet. Petitioner entities’ failure to address Francisco’s periodically varying algorithm was the reason for our concern with the Petition, especially given that Petitioner entities bear the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dec. 24–25 (explaining that Petitioner entities “do[] not address Francisco’s disclosure of ‘periodically vary[ing]’ the algorithm . . . [which] is problematic as [Petitioner entities] bear[] the burden of demonstrating . . . unpatentability” (first alteration in original) (quoting Ex. 1003, 2:43)). We did, however, further explain that, even assuming that there may be an embodiment in Francisco in which the algorithm would not be varied (a fact that Petitioner entities did not establish), we would have still exercised our discretion to deny institution given the other shortcomings of the Petition. Id. at 25. Accordingly, our Decision Denying Institution did consider the possibility of embodiments where Francisco’s algorithm would not be varied, even though Petitioner entities did not address this issue squarely in the Petition itself.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“of the claim construction arguments presented by Petitioner entities with respect to the claim term “message digest function” included arguing that the specification of the ’420 patent does not define this claim term explicitly, but that the specification “generally describes it as ‘reduc[ing] a data block B of arbitrary length to a relatively small, fixed size identifier.” Dec. 11 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”) 40). Petitioner entities also argued that the specification cites well-known cryptographic hash functions as examples of a “message digest function”—namely, MD4, MD5, and Secure Hash Algorithm. Id. For purposes of claim construction, Petitioner entities did not rely on the two related, but different, patents previously challenged by Rackspace and Apple that include claims reciting the claim terms “message digest function or hash function”; nor do Petitioner entities predicate their claim construction arguments presented and developed in the Petition on the positions taken by PersonalWeb in those three cases. See generally Pet. Notably, Petitioner entities do not even allege in the Request for Rehearing that our construction of the claim terms “message digest function or hash function” is incorrect. In any event, Petitioner entities do not direct us to, nor are we aware of, controlling precedent that prevents PersonalWeb from raising a claim construction argument with respect to the claim terms “message digest function or hash function” that appear in independent claim 25 of the ’420 patent merely because PersonalWeb chose not to raise the same claim construction argument when responding to previous challenges of two related, but different, patents. The cases relied on by Petitioner entities to support their new argument are distinguishable from the circumstances presented here. See Req. Reh’g 3. The Google case involved an inter partes review in which a Board panel ultimately adopted previous district court” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“argument presented by Petitioner entities because they only presented and developed this argument in the context of addressing claim 29, which depends from independent claim 25 and further recites “wherein the first content-dependent name for the particular sequence of bits comprises a digital fingerprint of the particular sequence of bits.” See Pet. 45–47. In essence, Petitioner entities request that we search through the entire Petition to find support for their theory that Francisco discloses the “message digest function or a hash function” recited in independent claim 25 because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Francisco’s system using a more complex hashing algorithm. If Petitioner entities desired for us to consider one portion of the Petition as supporting arguments presented and developed in another portion of the Petition, they should have provided citations to those portions with particularity. Moreover, the obviousness argument that Petitioner entities present with respect to dependent claim 29 appears to be setting forth an alternative ground based on proposed modifications to Francisco in view of the admitted prior art of the ’420 patent and secondary references. See Pet. 45– 47 (arguing that “Francisco meets th[e] limitation” of dependent claim 29, but further arguing that it would have been obvious to implement a more complex algorithm in Francisco because the ’420 patent “acknowledges that the MD5 hash algorithm . . . is prior art” and relying on Exhibit 1009 (Langer) and Exhibit 1010 (Browne) for teachings regarding MD5). The only statutory ground the Petition identifies under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) is obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Wyman and Francisco. See id. at 5. The Request for Rehearing does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the MD5 algorithm to be taught or suggested by the teachings of Wyman or Francisco, as opposed to substituting the MD5 algorithm taught in alleged admitted prior art or secondary references for Francisco’s algorithm. Stated differently, the Request for Rehearing does not suggest that we should have granted institution on any grounds other than under § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Wyman and Francisco. Accordingly, Petitioner entities have not persuaded us to modify the Decision Denying Institution with respect to claims 25 or 29.” slip op. at 8
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 8,099,420 - PTAB · Jan 21, 2020 · IPR2019-01089 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place the denial of institution for claims 1, 13, 25–27, 29, 30, 32, 34–36, and 166, finding no abuse of discretion.
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 addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its decision.” Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 442 (Fed. Cir. 2015). With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner entities in turn.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“argument presented by Petitioner entities because they only presented and developed this argument in the context of addressing claim 29, which depends from independent claim 25 and further recites “wherein the first content-dependent name for the particular sequence of bits comprises a digital fingerprint of the particular sequence of bits.” See Pet. 42. In essence, Petitioner entities request that we search through the entire Petition to find support for their theory that Francisco discloses the “message digest function or a hash function” recited in independent claim 25 because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Francisco’s system using a more complex hashing algorithm. If Petitioner entities desired for us to consider one portion of the Petition as supporting arguments presented and developed in another portion of the Petition, they should have provided citations to those portions with particularity.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“because it is a new argument presented for the first time in the Request for Rehearing. As we explained in the Decision Denying Institution, the extent of the claim construction arguments presented by Petitioner entities with respect to the claim term “message digest function” included arguing that the specification of the ’420 patent does not define this claim term explicitly, but that the specification “generally describes it as ‘reduc[ing] a data block B of arbitrary length to a relatively small, fixed size identifier.” Dec. 11 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”) 35). Petitioner entities also argued that the specification cites well-known cryptographic hash functions as examples of a “message digest function”—namely, MD4, MD5, and Secure Hash Algorithm. Id. For purposes of claim construction, Petitioner entities did not rely on the two related, but different, patents previously challenged by Rackspace and Apple that include claims reciting the claim terms “message digest function or hash function”; nor do Petitioner entities predicate their claim construction arguments presented and developed in the Petition on the positions taken by PersonalWeb in those three cases. See generally Pet. Notably, Petitioner entities do not even allege in the Request for Rehearing that our construction of the claim terms “message digest function or hash function” is incorrect.” slip op. at 5
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 8,099,420 - Corning Incorporated v. Panduit Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 16, 2020 · IPR2019-00776 · APJ Debra L Dennett · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Corning’s rehearing request and left institution denied for claims 1–4 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness on any asserted ground.
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 merely to 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Request for Rehearing (Paper 16, “Rehearing Request” or “Reh’g Req.”) of our Decision denying institution of an inter partes review (Paper 15, “Decision” or “Dec.”) of claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,488,115 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’115 patent”). In the Decision, we found that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the choosing limitation of the claims would have been obvious over cited references in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. 20, 26, 29. We, thus, found that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1–4 of the ’115 patent are unpatentable as obvious on any asserted ground. Id. at 22, 23, 27–30.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“negative slopes. See Ex. 1006, Figs. 2, 3. Petitioner failed to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, without using the ’115 patent as a template, would have elected to consider only some selected data in Abbott, while ignoring other data, or would have elected to choose an optical fiber based on such consideration. See Sensonics Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983))). Instead, Petitioner merely cited to the conclusory opinion of its expert declarant. Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 252).” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The second part of Petitioner’s first argument is that we “committed legal error by construing claim 1” of the ’115 patent “as requiring the slope to always be negative.” Reh’g Req. 4, 6–8. We made no such construction, either expressly or implicitly. In fact, we determined that no claim term required express construction. Dec. 7. In arguing that we committed legal error, Petitioner points to statements in Patent Owner’s briefing (Reh’g Req. 6–9), but Petitioner identifies nothing in our Decision that indicates we construed the “choosing” limitation of claim 1 to require that the DMD slope always be negative. Consequently, Petitioner’s assertion of legal error is unsupported.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,488,115 - Corning Incorporated v. Panduit Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 16, 2020 · IPR2019-00775 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Rehearing
Denied Corning’s rehearing request; the Board maintained its denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4 were obvious on any asserted ground.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“institute an inter partes review, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2018). In pertinent part, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: 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 merely to 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Request for Rehearing (Paper 16, “Rehearing Request” or “Reh’g Req.”) of our Decision denying institution of an inter partes review (Paper 15, “Decision” or “Dec.”) of claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,351,027 B2 (“the ’027 patent,” Ex. 1001). In the Decision, we found that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the combined teachings of the prior art would have rendered obvious the limitation of claim 1 that requires “choosing for use in a communications network those optical fibers in which the result of subtracting the peak delay at the first radius from the peak delay at the second radius is a negative number” (“the choosing step”). Dec. 23–25, 29–30, 32. We, thus, determined that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1–4 of the ’027 patent would have been obvious based on any asserted ground. Id. at 25–26, 30–33.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot reached
“negative slopes. See Ex. 1006, Figs. 2, 3. Petitioner failed to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, without using the ’027 patent as a template, would have elected to consider only some selected data in Abbott, while ignoring other data, or would have elected to choose an optical fiber based on such consideration. See Sensonics Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983))); see also Dec. 25 (concluding that Petitioner’s argument appears to be the product of hindsight). Instead, Petitioner merely cited to the conclusory opinion of its expert declarant. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 164).” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“legal error by construing claim 1” of the ’027 patent “as requiring the slope to always be negative.” Reh’g Req. 4, 6–8. We made no such construction. In fact, we determined that no claim term required express construction, expressly or implicitly. Dec. 7. In arguing that we committed legal error, Petitioner points to statements in Patent Owner’s briefing, see Reh’g Req. 6– 9, but does not identify anything in our Decision that indicates we construed the choosing step of claim 1 as requiring that the DMD slope should always be negative. Consequently, Petitioner’s assertion of legal error is unsupported.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,351,027 - 3shape A/S / 3shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 30, 2019 · IPR2019-00152 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and maintained institution of review of claims 1–20, finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The applicable standard for a request for rehearing of the Institution Decision is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), which provides that, [w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 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, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the parties’ arguments, we are not persuaded that we overlooked or misapprehended Deeper, Chevron, or the principle on which those cases rest. Instead, we maintain that unlike the facts in Deeper and Chevron, the facts of the present case do not compel denying inter partes review due to considerations of efficiency. As an initial matter, in Deeper and Chevron, a reasonable likelihood of success had been shown for the challenges of only a very small proportion of the challenged claims. In Deeper, there was a reasonable likelihood of success for only two among 23 challenged claims. Deeper at 42–43. In Chevron, there was a reasonable likelihood of success for only two dependent claims among 20 challenged claims. Chevron at 11. Although we do not have a specific threshold in mind, here, there is a significantly larger portion of claim challenges for which a reasonable likelihood exists than in either Deeper or Chevron. More importantly, in our view, Patent Owner’s efficiency arguments overlook that this proceeding involves one of multiple, similar patents that Patent Owner has asserted against Petitioner, and which Petitioner has challenged in petitions for inter partes review in IPR2019-00150, IPR2019-00151, and IPR2019- 00152. In these proceedings, the asserted prior art and the issues overlap. In each proceeding, Petitioner asserts the prior art references Picard, Ishihara, Tiziani, Gmitro, and Kino. Pet. 7; IPR2019-00150, Paper 3, 7–8; IPR2019-00151, 7. In IPR2019-00150, IPR2019-00151, and IPR2019-00152 collectively, Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to 17 of 45 challenged claims. See Dec. on Inst. 3, 28–29 (noting a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenge of eight claims); IPR2019-00150, Paper 11, 3, 27 (noting reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenge of five claims); IPR2019-00151, Paper 10, 3, 28 (noting a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenge of four claims). Given that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on a significant portion of similar assertions of unpatentability of the claims of multiple, similar patents asserted by Patent Owner against Petitioner, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the efficiency considerations noted in Deeper and Chevron weigh heavily in favor of denying inter partes review of the present case.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“considered the arguments and precedent presented by Patent Owner, we disagree with Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner’s proposed means-plus-function constructions must be substantively addressed in the Institution Decision. Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). As the Institution Decision explained, the Preliminary Response did not identify any specific reason that the differences between the parties’ proposed claim constructions would affect the ultimate analysis of the patentability of the challenged claims over the cited prior art. Dec. on Inst. 10. In particular, the Preliminary Response did not present any specific reason that the alleged teachings of the cited prior art would not meet Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions, if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions over Petitioner’s. Thus, the Preliminary Response’s general disagreement regarding the correct construction of the claims did not create any controversy regarding the patentability of the challenged claims over the cited references, making it unnecessary for the Institution Decision to reach a conclusion on claim construction. Thus, the Rehearing Request does not persuade us that we overlooked or misapprehended the law by not construing the claims in the Institution Decision. To the extent Patent Owner later identifies any specific reason that the ultimate question of patentability is affected by specific claim construction issues, those issues can be resolved in the inter partes review. The Federal Circuit has noted expressly a lack of concern for “the Board adopting a construction in its final written decision, as the Board is free to do.” SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indeed, the Board may construe claim language in its final written decision, after omitting any construction of the language in a decision to institute. TQ Delta, LLC, v. DISH Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Supreme Court’s observation that Petitioner “gets to define the contours of the proceeding” addresses the Board’s prior practice of instituting inter partes review only for a subset of the claim challenges brought by a Petitioner. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1354–1355. Patent Owner does not persuade us that the Supreme Court’s SAS decision requires the Board to adopt a claim construction in its institution decision. Here, having reviewed the record evidence, including the language of the claims, the Specification of the ’901 patent, and the asserted art, we found the claim constructions and prior art mapping advanced by Petitioner sufficiently viable to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. The Rehearing Request does not persuade us of error in that determination.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner failed to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have placed certain components in certain relative positions, as well as how those components would have worked in those positions. The Institution Decision addressed those arguments. Inst. Dec. 25–27. The Rehearing Request does not reiterate or further explain the arguments from the Preliminary Response that Petitioner failed to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have arranged the components in a certain way, or how such an arrangement would have worked. Instead, the Rehearing Request argues that the arrangement of Picard’s and Ishihara’s components proposed by Petitioner does not meet the claims. Pages 32–36 of the Preliminary Response simply did not make such an argument. For that reason alone, we find unpersuasive the Rehearing Request’s assertion that we overlooked or misapprehended arguments regarding the “illogical arrangement” of certain components. Reh’g Req. 9–13. Additionally, even if the Preliminary Response had made the arguments presented in the Rehearing Request, at this stage, we do not find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. In particular, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner places at least a portion of the alleged “illumination unit” downstream of the alleged “optical system.” Instead, Petitioner’s mapping places components of the alleged “illumination unit” upstream of some components of the alleged “optical system” and downstream of one component of the alleged “optical system.” Indeed, such positioning appears in the Rehearing Request’s annotated version of Picard’s Figure 8, which shows Nipkow disk 8 upstream of the alleged optical system’s fiber optic bundle 30 and lenses 15, 321, but downstream of the alleged optical system’s separator cube 11. As Patent Owner notes, Petitioner asserts that Nipkow disk 8 forms part of the claimed “illumination unit . . . configured to generate a plurality of incident light beams.” Reh’g Req. 9–10; Pet. 20–23. Thus, Petitioner identifies a portion of the alleged illumination unit as sitting upstream of the alleged optical system’s fiber optic bundle 30 and lens 15, 32, while placing the same portion of the alleged illumination unit downstream of the alleged optical system’s separator cube 11. This arrangement of components appears to satisfy Patent Owner’s asserted requirement that the illumination unit must create the plurality of incident light beams before the optical system can focus them. Reh’g Req. 9. In particular, Petitioner asserts that Picard’s Nipkow disk 8 generates a plurality of incident light beams and that lens 15, situated downstream of Nipkow disk 8, focuses the plurality of incident light beams. Pet. 22, 25. With Nipkow disk 8 situated upstream of lens 15, any light beam produced by Nipkow disk 8 would be generated before lens 15 receives it. Because lens 15 is part of the alleged optical system, to the extent lens 15 focuses light beams from Nipkow disk 8, it seemingly would follow that the optical system focuses the plurality of incident light beams after Nipkow disk 8 (the alleged module) generates them.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,615,901 - 3shape A/S / 3shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 30, 2019 · IPR2019-00151 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and maintained institution of inter partes review of claims 15–30, finding no error in its institution decision.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Decision is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), which provides that, [w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 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, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the parties’ arguments, we are not persuaded that we overlooked or misapprehended Deeper, Chevron, or the principle on which those cases rest. Instead, we maintain that unlike the facts in Deeper and Chevron, the facts of the present case do not compel denying inter partes review due to considerations of efficiency. As an initial matter, in Deeper and Chevron, a reasonable likelihood of success had been shown for the challenges of only a very small proportion of the challenged claims. In Deeper, there was a reasonable likelihood of success for only two among 23 challenged claims. Deeper at 42–43. In Chevron, there was a reasonable likelihood of success for only two dependent claims among 20 challenged claims. Chevron at 11. Although we do not have a specific threshold in mind, here, there is a larger portion of claim challenges for which a reasonable likelihood exists than in either Deeper or Chevron. More importantly, in our view, Patent Owner’s efficiency arguments overlook that this proceeding involves one of multiple, similar patents that Patent Owner has asserted against Petitioner, and which Petitioner has challenged in petitions for inter partes review in IPR2019-00150, IPR2019-00151, and IPR2019- 00152. In these proceedings, the asserted prior art and the issues overlap. In each proceeding, Petitioner asserts the prior art references Picard, Ishihara, Tiziani, Gmitro, and Kino. Pet. 7; IPR2019-00150, Paper 3, 7–8; IPR2019-00152, Paper 3, 7. In IPR2019-00150, IPR2019-00151, and IPR2019-00152 collectively, Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to 17 of 45 challenged claims. See Dec. on Inst. 3, 28 (noting reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenge of four claims); IPR2019-00150, Paper 11, 3, 27 (noting reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenge of five claims); IPR2019-00152, Paper 11, 3, 28–29 (noting a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenge of eight claims). Given that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on a significant portion of similar assertions of unpatentability of the claims of multiple, similar patents asserted by Patent Owner against Petitioner, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the efficiency considerations noted in Deeper and Chevron weigh heavily in favor of denying inter partes review of the present case.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not persuade us that we misapprehended the law. Having considered the arguments and precedent presented by Patent Owner, we disagree with Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner’s proposed means-plus-function constructions must be substantively addressed in the Institution Decision. Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). As the Institution Decision explained, the Preliminary Response did not identify any specific reason that the differences between the parties’ proposed claim constructions would affect the ultimate analysis of the patentability of the challenged claims over the cited prior art. Dec. on Inst. 10. In particular, the Preliminary Response did not present any specific reason that the alleged teachings of the cited prior art would not meet Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions, if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions over Petitioner’s. Thus, the Preliminary Response’s general disagreement regarding the correct construction of the claims did not create any controversy regarding the patentability of the challenged claims over the cited references, making it unnecessary for the Institution Decision to reach a conclusion on claim construction. Thus, the Rehearing Request does not persuade us that we overlooked or misapprehended the law by not construing the claims in the Institution Decision. To the extent Patent Owner later identifies any specific reason that the ultimate question of patentability is affected by specific claim construction issues, those issues can be resolved in the inter partes review. The Federal Circuit has noted expressly a lack of concern for “the Board adopting a construction in its final written decision, as the Board is free to do.” SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indeed, the Board may construe claim language in its final written decision, after omitting any construction of the language in a decision to institute. TQ Delta, LLC, v. DISH Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Supreme Court’s observation that Petitioner “gets to define the contours of the proceeding” addresses the Board’s prior practice of instituting inter partes review only for a subset of the claim challenges brought by a Petitioner. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1354–1355. Patent Owner does not persuade us that the Supreme Court’s SAS decision requires the Board to adopt a claim construction in its institution decision. . Here, having reviewed the record evidence, including the language of the claims, the Specification of the ’448 patent, and the asserted art, we found the claim constructions and prior art mapping advanced by Petitioner sufficiently viable to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. The Rehearing Request does not persuade us of error in that determination.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“presented in the Rehearing Request, at this stage, we do not find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. In particular, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner places at least a portion of the alleged “illumination unit” downstream of the alleged “optical system.” Instead, Petitioner’s mapping places components of the alleged “illumination unit” upstream of some components of the alleged “optical system” and downstream of one component of the alleged “optical system.” Indeed, such positioning appears in the Rehearing Request’s annotated version of Picard’s Figure 8, which shows Nipkow disk 8 upstream of the alleged optical system’s fiber optic bundle 30 and lenses 15, 321, but downstream of the alleged optical system’s separator cube 11. As Patent Owner notes, Petitioner asserts that Nipkow disk 8 forms part of the claimed “illumination unit . . . configured to generate a plurality of incident light beams.” Reh’g Req. 9–10; Pet. 18–21. Thus, Petitioner identifies a portion of the alleged illumination unit as sitting upstream of the alleged optical system’s fiber optic bundle 30 and lens 15, 32, while placing the same portion of the alleged illumination unit downstream of the alleged optical system’s separator cube 11. This arrangement of components appears to satisfy Patent Owner’s asserted requirement that the illumination unit must create the plurality of incident light beams before the optical system can focus them. Reh’g Req. 9. In particular, Petitioner asserts that Picard’s Nipkow disk 8 generates a plurality of incident light beams and that lens 15, situated downstream of Nipkow disk 8, focuses the plurality of incident light beams. Pet. 20–21, 23–24. With Nipkow disk 8 situated upstream of lens 15, any light beam produced by Nipkow disk 8 would be generated before lens 15 receives it. Because lens 15 is part of the alleged optical system, to the extent lens 15 focuses light beams from Nipkow disk 8, it seemingly would follow that the optical system focuses the plurality of incident light beams after Nipkow disk 8 (the alleged module) generates them. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that it was an abuse of discretion to institute review of claim 15 based on the arrangement of components proposed by 1 Although Patent Owner’s annotated version of Picard’s Figure 8 does not identify Picard’s lens 15 as part of the alleged optical system, the Petition asserts that it forms part of the optical system and serves to focus the plurality of incident light beams. Pet. 23–24. Petitioner. Patent Owner’s argument rests on a claim interpretation that requires that the claimed “optical system” be positioned, in its entirety, downstream of the claimed “illumination unit.” At this stage, neither party has fully addressed the correctness of Patent Owner’s claim interpretation. We, therefore, do not decide at this stage whether Patent Owner’s claim interpretation is correct and make no final determination as to whether Petitioner’s proposed arrangement of components falls within the scope of the claim.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,638,448 - Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00707 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 5, 7, 8, 18, 20, and 21 not shown unpatentable on the challenged obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS 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, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction of the phrase ‘above the surface,’ then the Board’s construction cannot be reasonably discerned.” Req. Reh’g 8. If that were the case, Petitioner contends we “must articulate and explain [our] construction for the purposes of judicial review.” Id. at 9. Yet Petitioner failed to explain in the Petition how the cited references teach the “above the surface” limitations of claims 5 and 18 under any construction of these limitations, including the one implied in footnote 8 of the Petition. See Pet. 55 n.8, 69 n.10. Petitioner did not specify any dispute regarding the meaning of the term “the surface” and neither did Patent Owner. See, e.g., id. at 8–9 (no terms proposed by Petitioner for construction), 55 (Petitioner’s analysis for claim 18 referring to earlier analysis relative to the “effect mounting surface”); Paper 26, 34–41, 43 (no arguments in Patent Owner’s Response based on an interpretation of “the surface”); Paper 34, 16–17 (Petitioner in its Reply referring to arguments in the Petition for “above the surface”). As such, we did not expressly construe “above the surface.” See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). In addition, Petitioner purports to construe “above the surface” for the first time. See Req. Reh’g 2, 7 (stating that the plain and ordinary meaning of “above the surface” is “above the ground” or “above the area to provide spacing for cables to run underneath the frame”). Petitioner could have, but did not, put forth such constructions in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. ordinary meaning of “above the surface” in the Request for Rehearing (see Req. Reh’g 7), Petitioner’s arguments come too late. And Petitioner never previously attempted to associate the recited “surface” with “the ground” or “the area to provide spacing for cables to run underneath the frame.” Contrary to Petitioner’s new constructions, and as explained above, Petitioner previously associated the recited “surface” with “the effect mounting surface.” See Pet. 55 n.8 (“the ’023 Patent provides no support for the frame in Claim 15 being supported above the effect mounting surface in Claim 18” (bold emphasis added)), 69 n.10 (referring to footnote 8).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“of the “above the surface” limitation was framed by its statement in the Petition that claims 5 and 18 are invalid “under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because the ’023 Patent provides no support for the frame . . . being supported above the effect mounting surface.” Pet. 55 n.8 (italics in original; bolding emphasis added), 69 n.10 (referring to footnote 8); see also Final Dec. 51 n.12 (quoting same). Thus, Petitioner associated the “surface” in the recitation “above the surface” with the “effect mounting surface” recited in base claims 2 and 15. Despite this association, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis made no attempt to show that Arseneault’s higher backwall (i.e., the “frame base,” see Pet. 51–53, 55–56) supports SCC-700’s cross members A–D (i.e., the “frame,” see id. at 50) above the units board of SCC-700 (i.e., the “effects mounting surface,” see Pet. 46–47).1 Rather, Petitioner addressed only the “frame base supporting the frame” and “allowing the cable to pass beneath the frame” limitations of claims 5 and 18. See Pet. 54–55, 69–70. Thus, we determined that Petitioner’s analysis “d[id] not establish that Arseneault teaches ‘a frame base supporting the 1 As we acknowledged, Petitioner’s analysis for claim 18 builds upon its anticipation analysis for claim 15 and its analysis for the recited “frame” in claim 1. See Final Dec. 51–52.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“3 We also considered Petitioner’s argument from its Reply that an ordinarily skilled artisan “could have easily made a rigid connection between the cross members and end-members using the same fasteners that are disclosed in Carter.” Final Dec. 72 (citing Paper 34, 24; Ex. 1051 ¶ 26). We were not persuaded by this rationale because Petitioner did not provide a reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have made such a connection. See id. at 75. Petitioner does not contest this determination in its Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,459,023 - Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 18, 2019 · IPR2018-00884 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and left intact the unpatentability of claims 1–17 and 23–25 under § 103.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. LEGAL STANDARD 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, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The burden of showing a decision should be modified on a request for rehearing lies with the party challenging the decision. Id.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“suggested by the Examiner to express more clearly the applicants’ intention to convey that the network entity is not the intended end recipient device. Final Dec. 11–12. As we explained, our interpretation that “a network entity intercepting a signaling message associated with a call between a sender device of the message and an intended recipient device of the message” means that the network entity receives the message and the network entity is not the intended end recipient device is supported by the prosecution history: [T]his interpretation is consistent with the prosecution history of the application resulting in the ’552 patent, which reveals that the patent examiner suggested using the word intercepting in the claims to further clarify the applicants’ intention to convey that “the independent claims involve a network entity receiving and filtering messages that are sent between two end users.” Ex. 1002, 364–65 (first emphasis added); see also id. at 367–68 (distinguishing an intermediate entity intercepting a communication between two end user devices, as claimed, from a prior art reference in which the intended end recipient device (a service verification apparatus) receives and makes determinations regarding the signaling message). Id. Thus, rather than ignoring the amendment “as if it had never happened” (Req. Reh’g 3), we explained our interpretation that the Examiner suggested using “intercepting” to more clearly convey that the recited network entity is not one of the intended end user devices between which the signaling message is sent. Although Patent Owner argues that the Decision “d[oes] not appear to apply the presumption that the applicant’s decision to narrow claim 1 by amendment gave rise to a general disclaimer of the territory between the original claim and the amended claim” (Req. Reh’g 4 (citing Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 740, (2002)), Patent Owner does not identify the alleged “disclaimer of the territory,” and thus fails to specifically identify how we allegedly erred. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Nor are we apprised that we misapprehended or overlooked any matter by Patent Owner’s assertions regarding the applicants’ comments about the amendment. See Req. Reh’g 4. Patent Owner characterizes the comments as “distinguish[ing] ‘intercepting’ in this context from the disclosure in a cited reference2 directed to merely receiving a message at a network entity.” Id. This characterization is incomplete, as the reference describes a “service request [that] is sent from the service-used apparatus directly to the service-provider apparatus, not to some other apparatus.” Ex. 1002, 368 (emphasis added). As we explained in the Decision, the applicants “distinguish[ed] an intermediate entity intercepting a communication between two end user devices, as claimed, from a prior art reference in which the intended end recipient device (a service verification apparatus) receives and makes determinations regarding the signaling message.” Final Dec. 12 (citing Ex. 1002, 367–68).” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s declarant is entitled to little weight: Dr. Easttom’s declaration testimony interpreting “receiving” fails to consider the full disclosure and prosecution history of the ’552 patent, as explained above, and, thus is not entitled to substantial weight. See, e.g. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 8–9; see also PO Resp. 6 (citing same). Additionally, Patent Owner hindered or prevented Petitioner from cross-examining Dr. Easttom, further undermining the weight given to Dr. Easttom’s testimony. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2–6; Exs. 1011–24. Final Dec. 12 n.9.” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“[t]he intercepting of call control server 112 at least includes seizing a message, which is not sent directly . . . from a client 104 to the server 112, 2 US 2003/0177363 (“Yokota”). and obstructing the message from progress while authentication processes are performed.” Req. Reh’g 5 (citing Paper 14, 4–5 (PO Sur-Reply)). Although Patent Owner cites to its Sur-Reply, we see no argument there regarding “seizing” and “obstruction.” As this was not an argument on which Patent Owner previously relied, it was not an argument that we could have misapprehended or overlooked. slip op. at 5
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 8,539,552
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.