• Unified Patents Inc. v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2022 · IPR2020-01338 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable; substitute claims 13–16 are denied as obvious over Chen, OAI, 3GPP, and Brueck, and claims 17–20 are withdrawn.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDenied

    “B. Patent Owner’s Motion under § 42.64(c) is denied as based on untimely objections to testimony. Patent Owner styled its Motion as a “Motion to Exclude Petitioner’s” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner offers an assessment as to the level of skill in the art as of” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “9. Rationale to combine Chen and OAI” slip op. at 39

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “8. Whether OAI is Analogous Prior Art Petitioner set forth reasons why OAI is analogous art in its Petition.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,645,562 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,645,562
• Apple Inc. v. Gui Global Products, Ltd., D/B/A GweeInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 4, 2022 · IPR2021-01289 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–19 under General Plastic, finding the second petition unnecessary and inefficient; it also denied Apple’s conditional motion for joinder.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied

    “In none of its briefs does Petitioner explain “why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it [the Board] identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),” short of saying that “Bohbot-Gundlach (470 IPR) and Kim (this Petition) offer very different disclosures.” Explanation 3; TPG 60.8 However, Petitioner does not identify any circumstances identified in the Trial Practice Guide supporting a need for a second petition, such as a large number of claims in litigation or a potential dispute about priority date. TPG 59. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 6) that this General Plastic factor weighs in favor of denying institution of the proceeding.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied

    “Conclusion In light of the General Plastic factors, the Uniloc decision, the guidance in the TPG, and the arguments presented for and against the exercise of discretionary denial, we conclude that it is appropriate here to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). IV. DENIAL OF MOTION FOR JOINDER As stated above, the Director may join a party to an ongoing IPR only if the filed petition warrants institution under § 314. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Because we exercise discretion to deny institution under § 314, we deny Petitioner’s Conditional Motion for Joinder. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied; and” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied

    “IV. DENIAL OF MOTION FOR JOINDER As stated above, the Director may join a party to an ongoing IPR only if the filed petition warrants institution under § 314. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Because we exercise discretion to deny institution under § 314, we deny Petitioner’s Conditional Motion for Joinder. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Conditional Motion for Joinder is denied.” slip op. at 11

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,259,020
• Apple Inc. v. Gui Global Products, Ltd., D/B/A GweeInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2022 · IPR2021-01292 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–13 under § 314(a), applying General Plastic to Apple's follow-on petition, and denied Apple's conditional motion for joinder.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied

    “1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; 2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it; 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; 4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; 5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; 6. the finite resources of the Board; and 7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review.” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied

    “requires two different decisions.” Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). First, we “determine whether the joinder applicant’s petition for IPR ‘warrants’ institution under § 314.” Id. Second, if the petition warrants institution, we then “decide whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant.” Id. Thus, before determining whether to join Petitioner as a party to the 338 IPR, we first determine whether the petition warrants institution under § 314(a).” slip op. at 4

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,589,320
• Apple Inc. v. Gui Global Products, Ltd., D/B/A GweeInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2022 · IPR2021-01291 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–13 under § 314(a), finding the General Plastic factors favored denying Apple’s second petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied

    “Factor 1: “whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent” As explained above, before us is Petitioner’s second petition challenging the claims of the ’077 patent. Pet. 74; Prelim. Resp. 6. We understand that Petitioner filed this Petition in case we did not institute review in the 472 IPR. Pet. 74; Explanation 4–5 (Petitioner “respectfully requests that the Board institute” review in the 472 IPR, but if the Board does not “the next-most efficient course of action would be for the Board to institute” in this proceeding). As stated above, we instituted inter partes review in the 472 IPR. The 472 IPR involves claims 1–5 and 7–13 of the ’077 patent and the 337 IPR involves claims 1–13. Thus, one more claim is challenged here than in the 472 IPR. Nonetheless, Petitioner provides no explanation why it is again challenging claims 1–5 and 7–13 here or why Petitioner needs two instituted inter partes reviews on the common claims. Pet. 74–75. In none of its briefs does Petitioner explain “why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it [the Board] identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),” short of saying that “(Gundlach (472 IPR) and Kim (this Petition) offer very different disclosures.” Explanation 3; TPG 60.7 However, Petitioner does not identify any circumstances identified in the Trial Practice Guide supporting a need for a second petition, such as a large number of claims in litigation or a potential dispute about priority date. TPG 59. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 6) that this General Plastic factor weighs in favor of denying institution of the proceeding. Factor 2: “whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it” Petitioner argues that it “learned of the prior art in the Samsung Petition [in the 337 IPR] around the time that petition was filed.” Pet. 75. Petitioner argues that because it filed its petition in the 472 IPR five weeks after the petition was filed in the 337 IPR, it “could not have reasonably leveraged its knowledge” of the prior art involved in the 337 IPR against Patent Owner. Id. Patent Owner argues that because Petitioner admitted that it knew of the prior art asserted in the 337 IPR prior to Petitioner filing the petition in the 472 IPR, General Plastic factor two weighs in favor of 7 As discussed above, in the Explanation, Petitioner requests that we should institute inter partes review in the 472 IPR, and if we do not, then we should institute here. Explanation 3–5. In the Reply, however, Petitioner requests that we institute here, despite having instituted the 472 IPR, without explaining why we should do so. Reply 2–3. denying institution of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 7. We agree that this factor weighs in favor of denying institution of the proceeding because Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why it had to file the petition in the 472 IPR five weeks after the petition was filed in the 337 IPR such that Petitioner could not have “leveraged its knowledge” of the prior art involved in the 337 IPR against Patent Owner. In other words, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why it could not have included the claims or prior art it asserts here in the 472 IPR. Accordingly, we determine that this second General Plastic factor weighs in favor of denying institution of the proceeding.” slip op. at 6

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’077 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Petitioner also filed a Conditional Motion for Joinder with Samsung et al. v. GUI Global Products, Ltd., IPR2021-00337 (“the 337 IPR” or “the Samsung 337 IPR”). Paper 4 (“Mot.”). GUI Global Products, Ltd., d/b/a Gwee (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner also filed an Opposition to the Conditional Motion for Joinder. Paper 8 (“Opp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition. Paper 9 (“Reply”). We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons described below, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims and deny Petitioner’s Conditional Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied

    “To join a party to an instituted IPR, the plain language of § 315(c) requires two different decisions.” Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). First, we “determine whether the joinder applicant’s petition for IPR ‘warrants’ institution under § 314.” Id. Second, if the petition warrants institution, we then “decide whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant.” Id. Thus, before determining whether to join Petitioner as a party to the 337 IPR, we first determine whether the petition warrants institution under § 314(a). slip op. at 4

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,562,077
• Apple Inc. v. Gui Global Products, Ltd., D/B/A GweeInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2022 · IPR2021-01290 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–19 under § 314(a), applying the General Plastic factors, and denied Apple’s conditional motion for joinder.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied

    “patent and the Petition here involves claims 1–19. Thus, more claims are challenged here than in the 471 IPR. Nonetheless, Petitioner provides no explanation why it is again challenging claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12, 14–17, and 19 here or why Petitioner needs two instituted inter partes reviews on the common claims. Pet. 73–74. In none of its briefs does Petitioner explain “why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it [the Board] identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),” short of saying that “Gundlach (471 IPR) and Kim (this Petition) offer very different disclosures.” Explanation 3; TPG 60.8 However, Petitioner does not identify any circumstances identified in the Trial Practice Guide supporting a need for a second petition, such as a large number of claims in litigation or a potential dispute about priority date. TPG 59. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 6) that this General Plastic factor weighs in favor of denying institution of the proceeding.” slip op. at 6

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied

    “IV. DENIAL OF MOTION FOR JOINDER As stated above, the Director may join a party to an ongoing IPR only if the filed petition warrants institution under § 314. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Because we exercise discretion to deny institution under § 314, we deny Petitioner’s Conditional Motion for Joinder. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Conditional Motion for Joinder is denied.” slip op. at 11

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,259,021
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2022 · IPR2021-01152 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 based on three § 103 grounds: Jungck and Bhatia; Jungck, Bhatia, and RFC2003; and Jungck, Bhatia, and Turner.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “has yet to enter a case schedule. Even with the arguments and evidence presented, we determine it to be speculative as to whether a stay may be granted if a proceeding is instituted. We reach the same conclusion with respect to Fintiv factor (2), given the speculative nature of the “trial date.” With respect to Fintiv factor (3), we determine that this weighs against discretionary denial; although some discovery has occurred, the parties have not invested significant resources in the district court proceeding. With respect to Fintiv factor (4), the existence of Petitioner’s stipulation regarding the full scope of estoppel is sufficient to suggest that overlap between the proceedings will be minimized. See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) 18 (precedential) (“Petitioner’s stipulation here mitigates any concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board, as well as concerns of potentially conflicting decisions. See Sand Revolution 12. Importantly, Petitioner broadly stipulates to not pursue ‘any ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised.’ Reply 6. As noted in Sand Revolution, such a broad stipulation better addresses concerns of duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions in a much more substantial way. Sand Revolution 12 n.5. Accordingly, Petitioner’s broad stipulation ensures that an inter partes review is a ‘true alternative’ to the district court proceeding. Thus, we find that this factor weighs strongly in favor of not exercising discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).”) (underlining added). Although Patent Owner asserts that there are deficiencies in Petitioner’s stipulation, those can be addressed through additional stipulations. We determine that Fintiv factor (4) weighs against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “2. Discretion Under § 325(d) With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), Petitioner asserts that “[n]one of the art relied upon herein was cited, discussed, or applied in the ’246’s prosecution,” and that the art cited therein is not “the same or substantially the same.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner does not argue that we should deny the Petition under this statutory basis. See Prelim. Resp. As such, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at least one claim of the ’246 Patent is unpatentable. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review is hereby instituted as to claims 1–20 of the ’246 Patent on the following asserted grounds:” slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,091,246
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01270 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 2–5, 11–14, 22, 23, and 26–28 under § 325(d) because substantially the same prior art was previously presented and material Office error was not shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “applicant, such as on an [IDS].” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8. Because it was submitted in an IDS during prosecution of the ’380 patent, Sourcefire qualifies as art that was “previously presented” to the Office.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied

    “Bionics framework, and based on the particular circumstances here, we conclude that the same or substantially the same prior art as in the Petition was presented previously to the Office, and Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that discretionary denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is appropriate. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). V. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 18

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,735,380
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2021 · IPR2021-00814 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Juniper’s rehearing request, leaving intact its denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “because the Board was not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for purposes of institution does not mean that we overlooked or misapprehended Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and importantly, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to reargue one’s case or to express disagreement with the Board’s decision.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “But Bruckman’s “trunk link” (or LAG as argued by Petitioner) is explicitly disclosed as a link to a core network, not as the links (or traces 34 on backplane 26) to subsidiary modules 24, as argued by Petitioner: “In network access systems, for example, a backplane may be used to connect a main module, having a trunk link to a core network, to a number of subsidiary modules, such as line cards, with ports serving network users. Ex. 1007, 1:25–30 (emphasis added); see id. at 1:61–2:4 (“The master module comprises a switch, which is typically used for linking the subsidiary modules via the connection lines to a network trunk.” (emphases added)); Dec. 25. Bruckman also explicitly discloses that “[a]t any given time, a number of the connection lines [between main module 22 and subsidiary modules 24, i.e., traces 34] are likely to be idle” (Ex. 1007, 2:2–4), which is contrary to a purpose of a LAG (see Ex. 1001, 2:10–16 (“The [LAG] forwarding entity usually attempts to distribute the load evenly over each physical output port of the aggregated logical link.” (emphasis added))). See Dec. 25–28. Thus, in the Decision, we found neither Petitioner nor its declarant had explained sufficiently, let alone with particularity, why the skilled artisan, but for hindsight, would have understood Bruckman to teach the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, of which the physical links are subject to the Designating Limitations, as recited, for example, in claim 1. Indeed, we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments in its Petition as to the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, and having reviewed the Request, remain unpersuaded. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”).” slip op. at 4

  Nonecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,768,928
• Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., And The P.F. Laboratories Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2021 · PGR2018-00048 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable for lack of written description and anticipation by the ’943 Publication; indefiniteness and lack of enablement were not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded that exclusion of the cited portions of Dr. Chambliss’ testimony or Exhibits 1073, 1074, 1075, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1086, 1088, and 1090 is warranted. While the parties disagree on the merits of Dr. Chambliss’ testimony as to whether PGGs were known to be gelling agents by persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Priority Applications, Patent Owner does not persuade us that Dr. Chambliss fails to support his testimony with any reasonable logical or scientific basis. The exhibits that Patent Owner seeks to exclude, which include a patent, technical references, and a journal article, are relevant to the inquiry Dr. Chambliss performed in forming his opinion. We therefore do not see a basis for exclusion under FRE 702/703 or 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Moreover, we find this evidence both admissible and relevant as it concerns a fundamental issue for our patentability analysis. Thus, we decline to exclude the evidence under FRE 401 or 402.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “would have possessed “a degree in one or more fields of medicine, chemical engineering, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, and/or pharmacology and a number of years of industry training or experience in one or more of those fields.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 82). Petitioner further proposes that “[i]f the degree is a Ph.D[.], then the required industry experience need not be significant, e.g., two years or more, but if the technical degree is a B.S. or M.S., then the industry experience would be more significant, e.g., five years or more.” Id. We preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s definition of a POSA’s skill level in our Institution Decision as it was undisputed at the time and consistent with the evidence of record. Inst. Dec. 7–8. Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner addresses the level of ordinary skill in the art in the post-institution briefing. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a POSA herein and have also taken into account the level of skill reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Applying this level of skill, we find that Dr. Chambliss and Dr. Constantinides are qualified to provide opinions as to the perspective and knowledge of a POSA. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 81–83; Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 58–63.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims recite methods of making formulations using recited features and ingredients. In addition, as we stated in our Decision on Institution, “[t]he claims define abuse deterrence in terms of when the dosage form is ‘subjected to t[a]mpering comprising heating at a temperature greater than about 45° C.’” Inst. Dec. 19 (quoting Ex. 1001, 41:50–52). Additionally, the claims and specification identify specific ingredients that can purportedly help achieve this abuse deterrence functionality. Id. Given these conclusions, further construction of “abuse deterrent,” which both parties generally agree relates to methods of making the drug dosage form less likely to be abused, is not necessary to resolve the issues before us.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable

    “Notwithstanding these individual teachings, we find that the specification fails to demonstrate that the inventors of the ’961 patent possessed a dosage form comprising a combination of the recited components that also satisfied the recited functionality. We are persuaded that the specification fails to provide sufficient guidance that would have led the POSA to create the recited dosage form. See Fujikawan 93 F.3d at 1571; In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (CCPA 1967). Rather, “one is left to select[] from the myriads of possibilities encompassed by the broad disclosure, with no guide indicating or directing that this particular selection should be made rather than any of the many others which could also be made.” Ruschig, 379 F.2d at 995.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,693,961 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,693,961
• Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2021 · IPR2020-00860 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–25 are unpatentable as obvious over the combinations of Golan and Martin, with additional references applied to specific dependent claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “Petitioner’s copying of the ’942 patent’s technologies from Patent Owner also supports [the] conclusion” of nonobviousness. Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 134). Patent Owner presents arguments with respect to the failure of Golan and Border inventors to achieve what is disclosed by the ’942 patent. Id. at 40–41. Patent Owner also asserts: “That Petitioner copied the invention of the ’942 patent (among other Corephotonics technologies, which Petitioner also appears to have copied) is strongly implied by the course of conduct between the parties and the timing of Petitioner’s announcement of their own version of ‘smooth transition’ in their iPhone 7 series in Fall of 2016.” Id. at 56–57 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 139).” slip op. at 46

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “IV. MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner objected to Patent Owner’s inclusion of Exhibits 2101,” slip op. at 79

  Patent outcomesUS 10,326,942 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,326,942

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.