- 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 - U.S. Venture, Inc. v. Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2020 · IPR2020-00728 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution for claims 16–17 based on the Fintiv factors and its § 314(a) discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if 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): The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for patent owner
“the evidence laid out an approximate time frame for when the trial would likely be held. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 2003); see also id. at 8–9 (citing PO Resp. 35; Ex. 1026) (Discussing the Court’s Procedures and timeline for trial after the docket call). Thus, we determined that this factor favored denying institution under our analysis of the factors under Fintiv. Id. at 9.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner acknowledges that the proposed combination of the references relies on “us[ing] the cumulative totals of the flow rates of the unblended components in the Hoffman compensation process” (id.), however Patent Owner identifies that Hoffman appears to teach away from using the flow rates of the unblended components in its calculations because of the uncertainty in the flow rate of the blended line. Prelim. Resp. 19, 21– 22. Contrary to Petitioner’s position, it is not Patent Owner’s burden to show why “a person of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged from measuring flow rates upstream for use in the Hoffman compensation process” (Reh. Req. 9), but rather, Petitioner bears the burden to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would measure flow rates upstream for use in the Hoffman compensation process in view of the all of the teachings of the references (35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (Institution only authorized if “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”)). Petitioner’s arguments do not show that we misapprehended or” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageNot reached
“argument concerning the construction of the term “in-line blending.” Id. at 13.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,207,686 - Chemco Systems, L.P. v. RDP Technologies, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 4, 2020 · IPR2019-01562 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Chemco’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1, 2, 10, and 15 over Muzik because the petition did not construe claim 1(b).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A petition must set forth “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). This is particularly important when a claim term is ambiguous. Petitioner did not provide an express construction of claim 1(b) in the petition, or specifically address the interplay between this claim limitation and the other limitations of the claim. Thus, we could not have overlooked or misapprehended the claim construction arguments made in the request for rehearing. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s request for rehearing on this ground.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“slurry tank via a delivery line and extracting a portion of the slurry delivered from the slurry tank via the delivery line and discharging said extracted portion of the slurry from said delivery line.” Ex. 1002, 5:29–32. Neither party proposed an express construction for this claim term. Dec. 5. In the Decision, we analyzed the language of claim 1(b), as well as “the interplay between claims 1(b) and 1(c),” and construed claim 1 to require that the “extracted portion” be discharged from “the delivery line” separate from “the rest of the slurry.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 8,133,401 - 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 - Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Berkeley*ieorRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · CBM2019-00013 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decisions denying institution of CBM review of the challenged claims in four proceedings, finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING 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 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“the relational database management system to . . . calculate” as requiring that the recited calculations be performed “in the RDBMS.” Inst. Dec. 8–10. Petitioner did not provide an express construction for this claim term in the Petition. Id. at 7. For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, and after reviewing the claim language, the written description of the involved patents, and the relevant prosecution history, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Id. at 8–10. Petitioner contends the construction adopted by the panel is incorrect because the claims on their face are broad enough to encompass “[a]ny use of the RDBMS,” for example using the RDBMS to” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As explained in the Institution Decision, Petitioner’s arguments with respect to whether the challenged claims recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art relied on a claim construction that we did not adopt. Inst. Dec. 13–14. As such, the Petition did not adequately explain why it was not novel and obvious to use an RDBMS itself to perform the claimed profit calculations. Id. at 14. Although Petitioner disagrees with our conclusion, and now cites to disparate portions of the Petition to support its argument, a mere disagreement is not the proper basis for rehearing, and a rehearing request is not the proper vehicle to make arguments that were not clearly set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner also contends that the Board failed to consider its obviousness arguments. Req. Reh’g 14–15. We considered these arguments, but ultimately found them unpersuasive. Inst. Dec. 13–14. In short, Petitioner presumed a construction of “using the relational database management system to . . . calculate” that we did not adopt, and did not explain sufficiently why the prior art of record would have rendered the challenged claims obvious under the adopted claim construction. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to remedy these deficiencies.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,882,137 - Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Berkeley*ieorRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · CBM2019-00009 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Teradata’s rehearing requests, leaving in place the denials of CBM review based on the petition’s failure to show the challenged claims unpatentable under the adopted construction.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING 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 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“the relational database management system to . . . calculate” as requiring that the recited calculations be performed “in the RDBMS.” Inst. Dec. 8–10. Petitioner did not provide an express construction for this claim term in the Petition. Id. at 7. For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, and after reviewing the claim language, the written description of the involved patents, and the relevant prosecution history, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Id. at 8–10. Petitioner contends the construction adopted by the panel is incorrect because the claims on their face are broad enough to encompass “[a]ny use of the RDBMS,” for example using the RDBMS to” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“the relational database management system to . . . calculate” as requiring that the recited calculations be performed “in the RDBMS.” Inst. Dec. 8–10. Petitioner did not provide an express construction for this claim term in the Petition. Id. at 7. For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, and after reviewing the claim language, the written description of the involved patents, and the relevant prosecution history, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Id. at 8–10. Petitioner contends the construction adopted by the panel is incorrect because the claims on their face are broad enough to encompass “[a]ny use of the RDBMS,” for example using the RDBMS to” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As explained in the Institution Decision, Petitioner’s arguments with respect to whether the challenged claims recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art relied on a claim construction that we did not adopt. Inst. Dec. 13–14. As such, the Petition did not adequately explain why it was not novel and obvious to use an RDBMS itself to perform the claimed profit calculations. Id. at 14. Although Petitioner disagrees with our conclusion, and now cites to disparate portions of the Petition to support its argument, a mere disagreement is not the proper basis for rehearing, and a rehearing request is not the proper vehicle to make arguments that were not clearly set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,882,137 - Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Berkley*ieorRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 27, 2019 · CBM2019-00015 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Teradata’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1, 3–5, and 10–26 because it had not shown the patent was not a technological invention.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A request for rehearing is not an opportunity for a petitioner to respond to an institution decision to make a better argument for any given matter than that which was initially presented in a petition. Notably, in now challenging the claim construction of the above-noted term, Petitioner does not cite or identify any portion of the Petition that was misapprehended or overlooked. Instead, Petitioner seeks to make a better case through citation to portions of the record that were not previously relied upon. For instance, Petition now points to content of the prosecution history (Ex. 1002) pertaining to claim amendments made during prosecution that Petitioner would have us infer as demonstrating that the applicant “knew” how to limit the claims to calculations “in the RDBMS” but chose not to. Req. Reh’g 2– 3. That was not an argument on which Petitioner previously relied, and thus was not an argument that we could have misapprehended or overlooked. Moreover, in now making the argument, Petitioner seemingly discounts the plain language of the claims in specifically reciting “using” the RDBMS “to independently calculate” marginal values of profit. Ex. 1001, 30:61–63. We have considered Petitioner’s arguments pertaining to claim construction, but are not persuaded that they demonstrate that we misapprehended or overlooked content of the Petition that warrants a change in the claim constructions that were identified in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petition, and which we found unpersuasive. As we explained in the Institution Decision, we were not satisfied that “bulk citations” to large portions of the record provided “meaningful explanation that the prior art shows an RDBMS, itself, that is performing the necessary profit calculations.” Inst. Dec. 13–14. We were not persuaded that Petitioner’s assessment of the prior art showed adequately that the “requirements of limitation 1[d] pertaining to independent profitability calculation by an RDBMS are non-novel or obvious.” Id. at 15. Although Petitioner may disagree with our determination in that respect, mere disagreement is not the proper basis for rehearing.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we adopted the Patent Owner’s construction of claim element 1[d(i)] (id. at 8), concluding that the construction was supported by “(1) the ’521 patent itself [see, e.g., id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:42–47)]; (2) the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant [see, e.g., id. at 14–16 (referencing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 58–67, 75, 81– 85)]; and (3) the prosecution history of the ’521 patent [see, e.g., id. at 16” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Page 12 of the Petition, however, makes no connection between Blain’s teachings and the pertinent claim limitation 1[d]. There is no reasonable inference from the above-noted content of page 12 of the Petition that paragraph 85 of Dr. Weber’s testimony should be evaluated in the context of viewing an RDBMS as independently performing profitability calculations. We simply were not persuaded that the Petition and the applicable portions of Dr. Weber’s testimony cited therein, including paragraph 85, adequately addressed the features required by claims limitation 1[d].” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,596,521 - Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Berkley*ieorRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 27, 2019 · CBM2019-00016 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Teradata’s rehearing request and left in place denial of CBM review of claims 2, 6-9, and 27-32 because it had not shown the patent was not for a technological invention.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“(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.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petition, and which we found unpersuasive. As we explained in the Institution Decision, we were not satisfied that “bulk citations” to large portions of the record provided “meaningful explanation that the prior art shows an RDBMS, itself, that is performing the necessary profit calculations.” Inst. Dec. 14. We were not persuaded that Petitioner’s assessment of the prior art showed adequately that the “requirements of limitation 1[d] pertaining to independent profitability calculation by an RDBMS are non-novel or obvious.” Id. at 16. Although Petitioner may disagree with our determination in that respect, mere disagreement is not the proper basis for rehearing. We also concluded that record evidence conveyed that the claims solved a technical problem with a technical solution in providing “a distinctive software-based process that harnesses benefits to computer performance.” Id. at 17. In reaching that conclusion, we rejected Petitioner’s premise that the claims were simply directed to solving a business problem using a business solution. Petitioner does not address adequately the issue of improved computer performance, or identify any matter that we misapprehended or overlooked in determining that record evidence reasonably conveyed that such improved computer performance emerges from the method of claim 1.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we adopted the Patent Owner’s construction of claim element 1[d(i)] (id. at 9), concluding that the construction was supported by “(1) the ’521 patent itself [see, e.g., id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:42–47)]; (2) the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant [see, e.g., id. at 15–17 (referencing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 58–67, 75, 81–85)]; and (3) the prosecution history of the ’521 patent [see, e.g., id.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Page 13 of the Petition, however, makes no connection between Blain’s teachings and the pertinent claim limitation 1[d]. There is no reasonable inference from the above-noted content of page 13 of the Petition that paragraph 85 of Dr. Weber’s testimony should be evaluated in the context of viewing an RDBMS as independently performing profitability calculations. We simply were not persuaded that the Petition and the applicable portions of Dr. Weber’s testimony cited therein, including paragraph 85, adequately addressed the features required by claims limitation 1[d].” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,596,521 - Magellan Midstream Partners L.P. / Powder Springs Logistics, LLC v. Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 14, 2019 · IPR2019-00025 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests, leaving institution in place and reiterating that “gasoline” preliminarily includes refinery streams or stocks.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s argument that “gasoline” is limited to “finished gasoline that may be used as fuel,” and determined that the term is broad enough to encompass the component gasoline streams of Bajek and the gasoline stocks of Hass. Dec. on Inst. 10–14, 22, 26 (“In particular, on this record, we determine that the term ‘gasoline’ is broad enough to encompass the gasoline stocks of Hass . . . .”). As this conclusion was sufficient to determine whether Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’948 and ’548 patents, we declined to determine exactly what other types of petroleum products would be considered “gasoline” in the art. Id. at 15.” slip op. at 3
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner
“[v]arious types of refined petroleum that are used as fuel.” Ex. 2004, 35. In the Institution Decision, we determined that this construction was “of limited assistance” in this proceeding because (1) the ’948 and ’548 patents were not at issue in the case when the district court rendered its claim construction, and (2) the construction was adopted at the request of the parties, and was not based on a detailed analysis of the intrinsic record. Dec. on Inst. 14. slip op. at 5
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,606,548 - Stage Completions Inc. / Stage Completions (USA) Corp. v. Gryphon Oilfield Solutions, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2019 · IPR2018-00776 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of the institution denial for claims 1–6 because the Petition had not addressed the casing-string limitation or shown that Murray disclosed it.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Because we cannot misapprehend or overlook arguments not previously made, the Board does not consider arguments made in a request for rehearing unless the request “specifically identif[ies] . . . the place where [that argument] was previously addressed in” the petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Petitioner does not identify where it construed the casing-string limitation, or where it asserted that Murray discloses this limitation. On the contrary, as stated above, Petitioner did not construe this casing-string term in the Petition, and did not expressly allege that Murray discloses its system of valves “in a casing string disposed in the well.” Petitioner only alleged that Murray discloses placing its valve system “in a well,” essentially disregarding the “casing string” term in its analysis. Thus, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner’s Rehearing Request should be denied.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“challenged claim is to be construed,” and “must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner stated in the Petition that each claim term “should be given their broadest reasonable plain and ordinary meaning,” but did not specify what that meaning should be. The ’727 patent does not expressly define “casing string,” so it is appropriate to “look to technical dictionaries for assistance in determining [a] term’s meaning to a person of ordinary skill.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Patent Owner provided excerpts from several technical sources that define “casing” and “casing string” as being cemented in place. See, e.g., Ex. 2004, 1 (excerpt from “Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary” defining “casing” alternatively as “[l]arge-diameter pipe lowered into an openhole and cemented in place,” and “[s]teel pipe cemented in place during the construction process to stabilize the wellbore”); Ex. 2005, 1 (excerpt from “Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary” defining “casing string” as “[a]n assembled length of steel pipe configured to suit a specific wellbore . . . sections of pipe are connected and lowered into a wellbore, then cemented in place.”); Ex. 2006, 20 (excerpt from “Oilwell Drilling and Servicing” defining “casing” as “steel pipe threaded together and cemented into a well”); Ex. 2007, 1 (stating that casing strings “are set in the well and cemented in place under specific state requirements”). Conversely, Petitioner has not provided any technical-dictionary definition of “casing” or “casing string” that does not refer to casing as being cemented in place.1 Given this evidence, we are not persuaded that Petitioner could not have reasonably foreseen that Patent Owner would propose construing casing string as being cemented in place.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not reached
“requested, by email, “an opportunity to file a reply to the Preliminary Response to address Patent Owner’s construction of ‘casing string disposed in a well, as well as Patent Owner’s assertion that Murray does not disclose this limitation under Patent Owner’s construction.” Ex. 1020, 3 (submitted with Rehearing Request). As Petitioner did not establish good cause for submitting a reply (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)), we denied Petitioner’s request. Ex. 1020, 1. In our subsequent Decision, we construed “casing string disposed in the well” to mean “steel pipe that is cemented in place in a well bore to stabilize the wellbore,” and determined that the term “does not encompass liner with open-hole packers.” Dec. 8. We further determined that Petitioner had not persuaded us that Murray discloses this limitation. Id. at 12. As a result, we denied the Petition. Id. at 19.” slip op. at 3
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,611,727
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.