- Phillips 66 v. Magēmā Technology, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01168 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–9 unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“suggests four facts: (1) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is a residual petroleum product, (2) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is ISO-8217-compliant, (3) the post-hydrotreatment LSFO is a residual petroleum product, and (4) the posthydrotreatment LSFO is ISO-8217-compliant. Petitioner does not show all four of these facts sufficiently to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the challenged claims are anticipated by Weiss ’974.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine we need not expressly construe any terms of the challenged claims at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we 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))).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“E. Discretionary Denial Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (precedential). Prelim. Resp. 11–32. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 6–12. Because we deny institution based on the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments, we need not decide whether to exercise discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 16
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,308,884 - Phillips 66 v. Magēmā Technology LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01175 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4 were obvious over any asserted combination of references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that 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.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“feedstock HMFO and the product HMFO of the challenged claims, as Petitioner argues it does, Petitioner must show that Weiss ’974 teaches or suggests four facts: (1) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is a residual petroleum product, (2) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is ISO-8217-compliant, (3) the post-hydrotreatment LSFO is a residual petroleum product, and (4) the posthydrotreatment LSFO is ISO-8217-compliant. Petitioner does not show all four of these facts sufficiently to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the challenged claims are obvious over the combination of Weiss ’974, Weiss ’515, and ISO 8217:2017. Petitioner’s arguments show only that the fuel oil is a bunker fuel that complies with ISO 8217. See, e.g., Pet. 27, 47. These arguments alone are insufficient because ISO-8217-compliant bunker fuels can be either distillate-based or residual-based. Ex. 1003, 14–17; Ex. 1082 ¶ 29; Ex. 2007 ¶ 25. Thus, showing that a fuel is a bunker fuel or that a fuel complies with ISO 8217 does not show that the fuel is residual-based.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“D. Discretionary Denial Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (precedential). Prelim. based on the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments, we need not decide whether to exercise discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,533,141 - Phillips 66 v. Magēmā Technology, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01174 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, or 5 were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 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.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Buchanan’s blending units to carry out Parkash’s blending process to produce any of HSFO1, HSFO2, or HSFO3. First, paragraph 40 of Buchanan teaches blending a generic “residual fuel product” with a generic “distillate fuel oil product” in order “to form a homogeneous final blended fuel oil product.” Ex. 1049 ¶ 40. Petitioner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Buchanan’s generic blending teachings to apply to the production of the specific fuel oils Petitioner identifies as HSFO1, HSFO2, and HSFO3. Second, to the extent that Petitioner contends that Buchanan’s teaching applies to any mixture of two fuel oils, one residual and one distillate, we note that Parkash teaches blending multiple process streams, including several distillate streams and at least two residual streams. Ex. 1102, 14. Petitioner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Buchanan’s two-stream blending unit to apply to Parkash’s multi-stream blending process. Third, Petitioner’s statement that “it would have been obvious to employ ‘[a]ny blending process as known by a [POSITA]’” in carrying out Parkash’s blending method is conclusory. Pet. 67. “[A] finding of obviousness at the time of invention requires a ‘plausible rational[e] as to why the prior art references would have worked together.’” Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). In other words, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to combine the known elements in the manner required in the claim at issue. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). A conclusory statement without supporting evidence or rationale does not provide the requisite reasoning. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”).” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“D. Discretionary Denial Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (precedential). Prelim. Resp. 10–30. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 7–13. Because we deny institution based on the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments, we need not decide whether to exercise discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 21
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,604,709 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 21, 2021 · IPR2021-00822 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that Shimura and the other references taught or suggested the required frame mode in claims 1–16 and 18–22.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for institution is set forth in 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.” As discussed below, we determine that Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Petitioner proposes a claim construction for “content mode,” as well as several related terms, i.e., “first content mode,” “second content mode,” and “mode(s) of content.” Pet. 16–18. We determine we need not explicitly construe those terms to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we 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))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Figure 26 and the accompanying text characterize frame mode as having the keyboard face down on a surface with the screen face up, and the base and display components forming a non-zero angle 134, similar to easel mode’s inverted “V.” See id. at 16:6–13.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“reasonable likelihood of showing the asserted prior art would have rendered obvious the subject matter of challenged claims 1–16 and 18–22. Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 require a “frame mode in which the main display component is oriented towards the operator, the base contacts a substantially horizontal surface, and the keyboard faces the substantially horizontal surface.” Ex. 1001, 17:47–51, 18:66–19:2, 20:27–30, Certificate of Correction. For all of its asserted grounds, Petitioner relies on Shimura’s Figure 4 for teaching the claimed “frame mode.” Pet. 57, 87, 102. We agree with Patent Owner that Shimura’s Figure 4 does not disclose or suggest a frame mode. See Prelim. Resp. 27–32.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,624,844 - Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 24, 2021 · IPR2021-00013 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, finding its new arguments untimely and unpersuasive as to the aerosol outlet limitation for claims 1–19.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in a petition. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked matters or arguments that were not asserted in the Petition. We deny the Rehearing Request because it is based on new arguments that Petitioner did not present in the Petition. B. Petitioner’s Arguments Are Unpersuasive Alternatively, even if we consider the new arguments raised for the first time in the Rehearing Request, we find none persuasive to show reversible error in the Decision. The ’767 patent describes and claims “a cap assembly” that is characterized by three distinct structures, namely, “a cap, a venturi insert, and a base attached together without welds or separate fasteners to define . . . an air outlet chamber” that is “partitioned from the interior of the receptacle by the base.” Ex. 1001, 15:6–13 (claim 1) (emphasis added); see id. at 3:30–43, 9:45–62 (written description).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“The Petition advances three grounds, each of which is based on obviousness and asserts Benalikhoudja1 as a prior art reference. Pet. 5. We found in the Decision, and Petitioner does not dispute in the Rehearing Request, that each ground “depends on Petitioner’s assertion that Benalikhoudja discloses or suggests ‘an aerosol outlet chamber partitioned 1 We refer to US 2006/0237090 A1, published Oct. 26, 2006 (Ex. 1004). from the interior of the receptacle by the base.’” Dec. 5–6. As we did in the Decision, we refer herein to that feature of the claimed invention as “the aerosol outlet limitation.” Id. at 6. Based on the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determined Petitioner did not show sufficiently, for purposes of trial institution, that Benalikhoudja discloses the aerosol outlet limitation. Id. at 9–10. Petitioner argues we erred on that point. Req. Reh’g 1–6.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,480,767 - TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. / TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 2, 2015 · CBM2014-00135 · APJ Philip J Hoffmann · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied both rehearing requests, leaving intact institution of CBM review of claims 1–56 under § 101 and denial of institution under §§ 102, 103, and 112.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner does not show that the Board abused its discretion.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“characterizing Togher’s disclosure, for the following reasons we find that Petitioner relied on Silverman and Gutterman to render obvious claim 1’s limitation “selecting a particular area in the order entry region [corresponding to a price of a static display of prices] through single action of the user input device . . . to set a plurality of parameters for the trade order and send the trade order to the electronic exchange.” Thus, Petitioner’s argument that Togher discloses “selecting a particular area in the order entry region [corresponding to a price of a static display of prices] through single action of the user input device . . . to set a plurality of additional parameters for the trade order and send the trade order to the electronic exchange” is not timely raised, and will not be a basis for instituting covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“displaying market information, setting trade order parameters, and sending a trade order to an electronic exchange. As further explained, the only hardware recited in claim 1 is a display and an input device, which both were known technology. Dec. 11–12. Further recitations in claim 1 are directed to use and operation of the GUI – for example, displaying market information in a certain arrangement on the GUI, as well as setting order parameters and sending the order to the exchange with the GUI. Id. Thus, inasmuch as claim 1 recites only known hardware, Patent Owner does not persuade us that claim 1 recites a novel GUI tool.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,772,132 - TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. / TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 2, 2015 · CBM2014-00133 · APJ Philip J Hoffmann · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied both rehearing requests, leaving in place institution on claims 1–28 under § 101 and denial of institution under § 103.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner does not show that the Board abused its discretion.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) on May 19, 2014, which requested review under the transitional program for covered business method patents of U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’411 patent”). Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 18, “Prelim. Resp.”) on September 3, 2014. The Board instituted covered business method patent review of claims 1–28 of the ’411 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and denied institution of any claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Paper 19 (“Decision”). Petitioner and Patent Owner each filed a Request for Rehearing asking that the Board reconsider its Decision – Petitioner requesting that we institute based on grounds 2 and 3 of the Petition because claims 1–28 are obvious based on Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher with or without Paal (Paper 21, “Petitioner’s Req. Reh’g”), and Patent Owner requesting that we deny institution because the ’411 patent does not qualify for covered business method patent review (Paper 22, “Patent Owner’s Req. Reh’g”).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“characterizing Togher’s disclosure, for the following reasons we find that Petitioner relied on Silverman and Gutterman to render obvious claim 1’s limitation “selecting a particular graphical area in the order entry region through a single action of the user input device to . . . set a price for the trade order and send the trade order . . . to the electronic exchange,” and relied on Togher to disclose the claim limitation “the trade order having a default quantity.” Thus, Petitioner’s argument that Togher discloses “a single action of the user input device [] both set[ting] a price for the trade order and send[ing] the trade order having a default quantity” is not timely raised, and will not be a basis for instituting covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“information in a certain arrangement on the GUI, as well as setting order parameters and sending the order to the exchange with the GUI. Id. Thus, inasmuch as claim 1 recites only known hardware, Patent Owner does not persuade us that claim 1 recites a novel GUI tool.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,676,411
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.